Think
about it – the gap between the rich and poor always gets wider. The
poorest hardly get any rise and are still in poverty, those of us
above get little more - whilst rich fat-cats increase their incomes
by up to 30%, compounded year on year into a massive annual
fortune. Incomes diverge, never converge to improve inequality.
They think us idiots.

The
UK Office for National Statistics help the scam using statistical
confidence tricks, including the Gini coefficient. My findings
prove this beyond any doubt. The con is to hide the ever
widening income inequality between any countries powerful rich
families and the rest of the population. Government and authorities
have utter contempt of us.

If
the government measured weight problems by ignoring the obese and
dangerously underweight - you would say they were corrupt and
trying to hide the problems - wouldn't you? That is how they
measure inequality - ignore the richest and poorest groups - those
millions of people most affected by what is being measured. For
political motive.

Indeed,
the UK Statistics Authority (Deputy Head of Regulation) actually
admitted to me about the Gini, “I agree with your observation that
it is not ideal if your particular interest is in inequalities at
the top or bottom of the spectrum”. So admitting it is "not ideal"
if you care about rich or poor. The first time perhaps they
disclosed the fact they know it hides the inequalities of the rich
and poor. This con goes for other inequality metrics e.g.
Palma ratio and S80/S20.

It is
sickening to me that government lied about improving inequality to
make billions of pounds of welfare cuts to our poorest families.
This is not simple opinion that inequality worsens, it is objective
fact and is easily proven. I explain how they did it - easy enough
for a school kid to understand - but not the 'experts' at the ONS
it seems:

The
Gini is a con to make people believe that government are addressing
inequality and are reigning it back in, when the truth is it gets
worse every year. They lie, so when they show you the Gini go down
any year you believe that inequality does. The admission they
agree with my observation is proof the authorities know it
hides inequality.

They
know all data has to be included as it is an essential factor in
making the derived analysis more accurate. Yet they ignore this
fact. The only logical reason to ignore the poorest and richest
groups is to hide how bad inequality is getting. Corrado Gini would
have also known this in 1912 - unless he was a terrible
mathematician. This was always a con job on the general
population.

If
government and authorities would lie about that, causing poor
desperate families with children to suffer, then they would lie
about anything. Only fair wage legislation can stop the greed of
the rich in privileged positions of power - remember that if we get
any Swiss-type referendum. Do not bottle out.

It was like saying that inequality in the UK
improved just because the average wage went up - clearly not
true.

Very intelligent people have been been told how
to do something simple and have not understood what they are doing
– which is unbelievable to me.

The public are all treated as though they would
never be able to understand or work this out, like
imbeciles.

It is most important to note - we are not taught
to think for ourselves - just taught to think the same way as
others - why lies continue.

UK ONS and other countries statistics offices measure inequality
with Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient - it is a confidence
trick

FACT: Not only is the Gini rubbish measuring inequality
within a country of poor to rich, it is also useless for comparing
one country to another country.

The
Gini coefficient is a confidence trick to hide the ever widening
gap between each countries powerful rich families and the rest of
the population. It also clearly hides millions of poor families,
many who are in poverty. Obviously, nobody wants to admit they know
this. Using frequency distribution to hide the wealthy, it only
compares the poor to average income - not comparing the millions of
poorest families on lowest income to the richest.

I use
the analogy of measuring inequality with a rubber band in my video
- inequality widens getting worse - yet the measure reads the same.
Close your eyes and think about it for a minute, does the gap
between the rich and poor ever get narrower? Wake up - they treat
us like uneducated plebs! This is fact and not mere opinion being
written here - some don't know the difference.

An
example of stretch is during 2012 the FTSE director's got a 27%
rise and the millions of people on minimum pay got 1.8% - the rich
got £100,000's per annum, the poor got just over £200. In 2013
CEO's got 21% and those on minimum pay got 1.9% with similar sort
of cash rise in the 'pay packet'.

In the
video I made the following chart for those bad at maths and to
provide undeniable proof for corrupt people like those at the ONS.
How can (an ideal?) country be the same inequality as the UK? How
is somebody in a country like this be living in the same inequality
as us in UK?

Wouldn't
a country with a more even spread of six times income differential
not have much less inequality than ours? Why has this the same Gini
then?

The IFS
are also part of the 'problem' - they support the
deception.

Here is
a chart which shows 'income inequality' going down as well as up -
this when incomes diverge and inequality gets worse.

Something
else you are being conned about - the rich are not being squeezed -
we are.

The
financial wealth of the country has built up in the rich because
ALL governments have helped them by squeezing the working
class.

Workers
have little or nothing left after tax and essential bills.
Governments know tax is greater burden on the them but lie about
squeezing the rich.

BTW:
You hear government propaganda about richest 1% paying 27% of
income tax - they feel very sorry for this 'poor' 1% (themselves or
friends).

It is
because fat-cats are the ones with up to 30% compound rises year on
year - whilst holding down pay of workers who made them all that
money.

It is
insulting because they use exploitation of workers as propaganda
against them. Pay workers these big rises and they will pay more
tax also.

BREXIT - was for the
sake of our grandchildren - our children already have had their
lives made worse for them.

Many have
blamed us 'old people' for voting out - but many of us 'old
people' have seen what is happening over the decades.

I am still amazed we had more than 5% of the population voting to
stay who *still* cannot see the problems getting worse in the EU or
that us remaining makes our problems worse (for the many
spin-doctors: staying in wasn't going towards solving these
problems).

BTW: I never blame immigrants who are only doing what many of us
would do (go to better country) - or say they caused the problems -
for those that slur & misrepresent me.

We have made our kids lose out being in the EU, as firms and
government would rather take skilled workers from a vast supply of
immigrants than train British young adults.

The times we heard stupid people say, "We wouldn't have the NHS if
it wasn't for immigration" - government treat you like morons and
lied about not being able to get Brits to be doctors
(they restricted
training). NHS lied about Brits not
wanting to nurse and are taking trained nurses from poorer
countries (in & out of EU), while turning down tens of thousands of young
Brits.This is why we have to
leave the 'single market' with free movement and seriously restrict
points system with critical examination of each
applicant.

We
are taking away skilled and younger people from poorer countries
but supporters of EU don't care what state it
leaves these poorer countries for their elderly left
behind.

Mass
immigration was supposed to solve the problem of elderly people
having to work years longer - how is that working out - it will
make the elderly care crisis £trillions worse.

Why -
the cost for looking after elderly individuals is rising -
immigrants and their children/ grandchildren get old also - do you
understand concept of a pyramid scam?

The EU is an anti-democratic scam - allowing poorer incompatible
countries to join. We were never going to flood Poland - though
many of our jobs have gone there.

Cameron lied with his "tens of thousands" - it was not achievable -
which the press did not warn about - yet they did about Brexit lies
e.g. £350m to the NHS (also wrong).

It is important to note that the EU want Turkey +others
to join, the latest confirmation was March 2016. Even if these
countries do not join soon, they all want EU expansion. Also, this
refugee problem that they cannot handle is tiny to what is to come
with world
overpopulation.

People only have to look at what is happening: skilled &
semi-skilled Brit wages held down - less housing & jobs
available to Brits - Pension Pyramid Scam (immigrants get
old too, as do their children, grandchildren...) with care it
will cost £trillions - worsening food/water/energy
security - many more crimes - greater congestion - more NHS
overstretch...

Ignorant people do not understand is that we are incurring
massive extra
costs because of immigration - not just
extra schools but also desalination plants.

We had to have one built in London in June 2010 - to provide
enough drinking water for this extra population.

The pro-immigration nutters do not like facts like these -
they are helping the rich to f- up the British working
class..

The financial (Mars bar) gain is fiddled as it does not include all
costs e.g. crime - also false argument anyway because it could be
Brits making this money.

Even if we build 100,000 homes every year it still would not be
enough for 300,000+ extra immigration - also we know young Brits
cannot get social housing any more.

The Tories will likely take advantage - but they can be voted out.
Even if half the Remainians scare-mongering is true - we had to
leave. Can you all *honestly* not see that?

The bosses do not train any more to anything like they used to. In
early 1970's, I was trained by EITB (Engineering Industry Training
Board) as a Mechanical Engineering Technician Trainee - and later
as a Telecommunications Technician Trainee with PYE Telecom.

1964 -Engineering Industry Training Board
The EITB had the power to impose a financial training levy on
employers over a certain size. Employers who could prove a good
track record of training activity could be granted exemption from
most of the levy.

Corrupt governments would rather give skilled jobs to foreign
workers than train our British kids up to higher
standards.

WARNING -
corrupt politicians still want this cheap skilled immigrant labor -
so we do not train young British workers, even now we are out of
the EU.

Authorities and media
lie - you are all being brainwashed. In fact 'fake news' was
already here - for example, try deny
this:

Chilcot was a cover-up -
he lied when saying it was "flawed intelligence", allowing Blair to
say he "trusted the
intelligence".I knew
the inquiry would pivot on this point - the authorities clearly do
not want to prosecute and will allow the guilty to go free.

However, the truth is Tony Blair got John Scarlett and JIC
to alter the intelligence - so it was in fact
'falsified intelligence' and not flawed.

It is on record the cabal changed the wording and removed caveats
to achieve the desired outcome - to deceive parliament and
public.

(You can see
Google has only around thirty sites reporting this fact - some are
mine - proof perhaps that authorites do not want to
prosecute?)

Analogy: You are
seriously ill, ATOS may say that you ARE ABLE to do something to
fail you in the All Work Test and to rob you of legal
entitlement.

I wrote
for years that Blair would merely be heavily criticised in the
latest cover-up for an 'error of judgement' - his 'mistake' - to
make the inquiry look like they are being more critical than in the
past. The JIC all would know they should not make the evidence for
invasion stronger - it was no mistake.

If bad people killed or
mutilated up to a million British men, women, children and babies
by illegal invasion, we *all* would want them to stand trial -
true?

What
possible explaination could there be for our government and the ONS
saying inequality has improved back down to 1986 levels? Is this
not a lie? Since then the rich have been compounding large pay
rises up to 30% year on year and our poorest now have to use food
banks.

Why
were the ONS evasive and not confirm or deny my findings? Could it
possibly be that the measure they use (Gini coefficient) is a
confidence trick to hide an ever widening gap - could
it?Look at
my video above and see how it was done. Anybody with GCSE maths can
understand.

This
worldwide con job under-reports inequality between the privileged
rich families and millions of poor families in every country. The
media stay silent.

Anyhow,
calm down Garry, it's not good for you. Forgive me, I come from a
poor background, born in Liverpool 1954, and know just how these
families suffer. We should have a much fairer (more equal) society
by now, with no poverty in our rich country. In case you've not
guessed - I am a socialist.

These
are a few of my thoughts on things that seem very obvious to me.
More of a jotter than a website. However, these are Important
things, like the biggest pyramid scam ever - governments saying we
need a lot of immigration to pay for old age pensioners. Are they
really that stupid? How has it kept retirement age down, you
imbeciles? Also we all know that problems get worse with mass
immigration, not better e.g. housing and job shortages. I can guess
most of your replies, please see below.

Another;
the financial authorities. Surely you know about the big cover-up.
Each time there is a 'mis-selling' scandal you seriously have never
asked yourself, "Why is mis-selling not fraud?". We are not all
idiots, we know the difference between when something is sold by
mistake and when there is evidence that something is sold by
deception and hiding facts. Individuals that commit fraud are
criminals - as are individuals in authority that cover up crime.
With a cover-up the latest financial crisis was inevitable, as is
the next. There will be more financial disasters as authorities
continue to protect guilty people - they aid and abet crime.
We were easily able to win an official complaint against the
FSA/FCA for their evasion and malfeasance.

People
in the authorities, including the FCA & SFO, are crooks. They
help criminals evade capture. Rather than jail those that defraud
customer they allow them to escape, giving the firm fines which are
then passed on to their customers. Customers get robbed twice with
authorities help.

Two of
the greatest threats to society - what future for our country if we
cannot control over-population or financial meltdown?

BTW: I
was against these illegal wars - Afghanistan was using a
(deliberately) failed illegal extradition as pretext for war - Iraq
was falsified intelligence - see what I say about those. We should
be sending farming/ irrigation equipment and saving people - not
dropping bombs and killing people.

We have evidence Barclays defrauded us - and the authorities
have been protecting them. This was not just us however and there
is the wider picture to consider. Including you and your
family.

<- This is me in 1997 just before I was forced to retire,
before I began our fight against Barclays, financial authorities
and the Serious Fraud Office. The tubes are a lot worse under the
covers. I was trying to smile for my 11 year old daughter, Faye,
taking the picture. I was thinking this would be the last time she
saw me. I later put the annotated picture on my website to warn
others about the under-reporting of elective surgery going wrong.
The 'HELP PLEASE' is added now.

First things first, this is the internet after all; how do you
know this is not a spurious accusation by somebody of dubious
intelligence? We are making serious claims e.g. that the
authorities cover up mass fraud by Barclays and others. So here is
proof of cover up; an official complaint we
won against FSA for corrupt behaviour in
protecting Barclays. More details
here.

Every time I wrote to Barclays or authorities I ended up in a
ball of unbearable pain on the floor, which is why there are gaps
when contacting them. I needed a big break - I knew the horrific
agony of going back for more. You do not return willingly to a
beating. It was like my chest and side were being ripped out. We
thought it was the damaged nerve bundle from the op. The two <-
pictures at bottom were sent to the pain clinic after injections
for the damaged nerve bundle. On the left picture you can see three
scars where the hosepipes went in for body cavity juices.

Things actually got much worse fighting them and I was lucky to
survive again. There was a growing aneurysm which eventually had to
burst due to the repeated stress of 'battle'. It also split my
artery (chest to stomach) causing another large aneurysm which is
now getting bigger every year, with more serious complications. You
could likely expect to fight any bad people that defraud you, but
not reputable banks and never the financial authorities - our
'protectors'.

How can you help? This is not about helping me, I had to give
up, my health is too bad. The FOS falsified our complaint in 2013
by removing essential key points, exactly like Barclays. The
FOS would not rule despite admitting that it was within their time
limit. As Barclays told them to do. The FOS chief
executivewith whom I communicated,
Natalie Ceeney, left to work for HSBC.

This is about helping my children and yours. Faye has her own
lovely daughter now. The reason the UK is in great trouble now is
because of the authorities corruption e.g. ask them what the
difference is between fraud and 'mis-selling'. This is why it will
happen again and again. Please help by warning your friends
and family about the corrupt authorities. For the sake of
all your grandchildren too. If the authorities admit they
'lack integrity' then
what is the point of them?

IRAQ
Legacy

I would
say there is a complete lack of intelligence on this subject (no
pun), but I know many lie. Some idiots think that all these
problems are nothing to do with us or America. It was admitted by
President Obama to Vice News March 2015: "ISIL is direct outgrowth
of Al-Qaida in Iraq which grew out of our invasion which is an
example of unintended consequences which is why we should generally
aim before we shoot" - he should have said illegal
invasion.

The
vile London bombers and Lee Rigby killers tell us that our murder
of all those hundreds of thousands innocent civilians caused this
radicalisation - it is cowardice not to admit this fact.

How likely is it that they would have been radicalised had we not
killed all those innocent Muslims in illegal war - with nothing
here before then.

This is not excusing terrorism - or justifying it - merely
explaining why they attack. I put that in because some like to
misrepresent what I write - many know I am against terrorism -
Muslim or Western. Causality - read up on it. The security services
warned Tony Blair an "invasion would lead to more terrorism" - did
the security services justify the London bombers
actions?

Tony
Blair is directlyresponsiblefor the
worst atrocity committed by our government since the end of World
War 2. This is truly a most heinous crime.

Imagine
just for a moment that we in the UK were invaded using falsified
intelligence. Not wrong intelligence - that is the obvious big lie
(why the flip do intelligent people comply) -
simply altered and exagerated with caveats removed e.g. "MAY BE
ABLE to deploy chemical or biological weapons" to "ARE ABLE to
deploy chemical or biological weapons". It 'may be possible' is not
the same as 'they can' - nor is 'intelligence suggestion' same as
fact.

Let us
say the invading country are responsible for the deaths of over
100,000 British people (up to 1 million). As many innocent men,
women, children and babies that were killed in Iraq. Many more were
maimed. You surely would want justice for all those killed and
maimed then, wouldn't you?

If your
friends or sons and daughters (or any of your family) had been
slaughtered using lies to do so - sure, you know you
would.

The
Intelligence report was a work of fiction, when it was supposed to
be a true story. This work was a collaboration by known authors.
The ICC at The Hague is biased and clearly a tool of Western
imperialism. They are very selective about who is prosecuted -
primarily those in African countries.

The
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the
US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN
charter.

The
Chilcot Inquiry will be another Public Relations exercise - damage
limitation. It will be more critical to say they did a good job -
to pretend it was not another whitewash. But it will be - nobody
will be prosecuted for illegal war.

Quote:
He (Blair) told Chilcot: "In a sense what I was saying to America
was: 'Look' – and by the way I am absolutely sure this is how
George Bush took it – 'whatever the political heat, if I think this
is the right thing to do I am going to be with you. I am not going
to back out because the going gets tough. On the other hand, here
are the difficulties and this is why I think the UN route is the
right way to go".

Obviously
Blair knew Bush would not go down the peaceful UN route - he also
certainly knew though Bush would though try to persuade the UN to
use his violent route for regime change. Blair knew Bush wanted
regime change - which is an illegal excuse for
invasion.

Goldsmiths
Legal Advice

I originally wrote this analysis many years ago, to lay down the
gauntlet for fools that said invasion of Iraq was legal and our PM
is not a war criminal.

Some
folks truthfully believe that there were loopholes for us to invade
- not saying much for morality of government using loopholes to
kill people.

I use
Goldsmiths own written legal advice to explain, as no country can
legally invade another without legal justification to do
so.

Even a
legal novice should be able to see through Goldsmiths lies and
deceptions - in which he aided and abetted Blair (along with
Scarlett and others).

We all
know that UN resolutions were the only supposed LEGAL excuse they
could find to try to justify the removal of Saddam i.e. could not
use regime change etc.

One
quote: "The Attorney General had concluded that authority for the
use of force in Iraq was contained within existing UN resolutions
and that another was not needed, Mr Straw said in reply to an
emergency question from the Opposition."

Indeed,
it did not seem to matter how many Iraqis they killed in doing so -
Blair would not give any upper limit when he would admit it was the
wrong thing to do.

Keep in
mind when reading this, that the UK signed up to UN1441 and are
actually legally bound to this agreement.

First
and most importantly of all - fact beats even 'expert opinion' -
all lawyers know this.

Goldsmith
(the Attorney General and Blair’s pal) certainly knows this - yet
you will see he uses his opinion to falsify his excuses to overrule
facts.

Please
note the difference between his use of opinions and the actual
FACT.

So – my
comments start with G> - everything following numbers 26-31 is
from Goldsmiths written legal advice – and anything beginning with
'quote' is from relevant UN Resolution:

26. To
sum up, the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear
and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that
there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal
effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides. A
key question is whether there is in truth a need for an assessment
of whether Iraq's conduct constitutes a failure to take the final
opportunity or has constituted a failure fully to cooperate within
the meaning of OP4 such that the basis of the cease-fire is
destroyed. If an assessment is needed of that situation, it would
be for the Council to make it. A narrow textual reading of the
resolution suggests that sort of assessment is not needed, because
the Council has predetermined the issue. Public statements, on the
other hand, say otherwise.

G>
He has failed to explain (either in the detail or summation) what
exactly is unclear in UN1441 that would give countries permission
for unilateral action - even in an unclear way - that is a
FACT.

G>
The key question he makes is a sham ("whether there is in truth a
need for an assessment") - because it is a FACT - whether it is
needed or not - UN1441 actually calls for an
assessment.

G>
He is clearly conning the reader - it is pure
deception.

27. In
these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal
course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to
authorise the use of force. I have already advised that I do not
believe that such a resolution need be explicit in its terms. The
key point is that it should establish that the Council has
concluded that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity
offered by resolution 1441, as in the draft which has already been
tabled.

G>
Not only the safest - but the only legal course using UN
resolutions - because it is a FACT that is what UN1441 requires a
further resolution - as per item 12.

G>
Quote: "12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report
in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider
the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the
relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace
and security;"

G>
Again he is clearly conning the reader - it is pure
deception.

28.
Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating
history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US
Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a
reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in
principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further
resolution.

G>
False - an outright lie.

G>
FACT: UN1441 specifically recalls all prior resolutions - including
UN678 - which now requires the UN "convene ... in order to consider
the situation and the need for full compliance".

G>
This gives UN1441 primacy over UN678 - like your latest 'Last Will
and Testement' - UN1441 now requires UN to decide.

G>
Even if it did not - UN678 applied "all necessary means" only to
the demand that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait anyway - "to restore
international peace and security in the area Kuwait". As Iraq army
are no longer in Kuwait, their argument is rubbish - it is not even
a moot point.

G>
Quote: "Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in
particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990)
of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3
April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August
1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995,
and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant
statements of its President,"

G>
Yet again he is clearly conning the reader - it is pure
deception.

29.
However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the
authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be
sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that
Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we
would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of
non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the
resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be
highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest
reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider very carefully
whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq
is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has
failed to take its final opportunity.

G>
False - an outright lie.

G>
Nothing in UN1441 gives authorisation to use force under any
circumstances - it recalls UN678 and now requires UN decision on
next step.

G>
FACT: UN1441 specifically requires the UN to make that judgement on
what to do next - here it is again as stated in item
12.

G>
Quote: "12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report
in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider
the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the
relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace
and security;"

G>
Yet once more he is clearly conning the reader - it is pure
deception - starting to see a pattern?

30. In
reaching my conclusion, I have taken account of the fact that on a
number of previous occasions, including in relation to Operation
Desert Fox in December 1998 and Kosovo in 1999, UK forces have
participated in military action on the basis of advice from my
predecessors that the legality of the action under international
law was no more than reasonably arguable. But a "reasonable case"
does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court I would
be confident that the court would agree with the view. I judge
that, having regard to the arguments on both sides, and considering
the resolution as a whole in the light of the statements made on
adoption and subsequently, a court might well conclude that OPs 4
and 12 do requ1re a further Council decision in order to revive the
authorisation in resolution 678. But equally I consider that the
counter view can be reasonably maintained. However, it must be
recognised that on previous occasions when military action was
taken on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, the degree of
public and Parliamentary scrutiny of the legal issue was nothing as
great as it is today.

G>
Opinion is not the same as fact - and especially not a "reasonably
arguable" opinion.

G>
FACT: Even if a previous war was illegal - illegality cannot be
used as the basis of starting new wars.

G>
You cannot use an argument that you got away with murder last time
- so you can murder with impunity again.

G>
Yet again he tries to revive the authorisation in resolution 678
for "all necessary means" - but we know for a FACT that UN1441
stops that and only applies to getting Iraq army out of Kuwait
anyway.

G>
Goldsmith admits, "a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the
matter ever came before a court [he] would be confident that the
court would agree with the view" - because his argument is
rubbish.

31. The
analysis set out above applies whether a second resolution fails to
be adopted because of a lack of votes or because it is vetoed. As I
have said before, I do not believe that there is any basis in law
for arguing that there is an implied condition of reasonableness
which can be read into the power of veto conferred on the permanent
members of the Security Council by the UN Charter. So there are no
grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle us to
proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation.
In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to
military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to
categorise a French veto as "unreasonable". The legal analysis may,
however, be affected by the course of events over the next week or
so, eg the discussions on the draft second resolution. If we fail
to achieve the adoption of a second resolution we would need to
consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in
the light of circumstances at the time."

G>
Vetos are valid even if "unreasonable" e.g. the many examples were
the American veto could be considered "unreasonable".

G>
He even admits that "there are no grounds for arguing that an
'unreasonable veto' would entitle" them to invade.

G>
He says that if a second resolution fails - they need to
"[RE]consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case
in the light of circumstances at the time" - where is that
review?

G>
It can be seen by this analysis that Goldsmith does not have a
legal case for invasion and I welcome people to show where the
scrutiny is wrong.

Some
have said, 'Blair really believed that Iraq had WMD. It was just
the poor quality of the evidence. Actually, x number of Inquiries
found him innocent'.

Firstly
- I think it possible he convinced himself that Iraq had some WMD
(likely field munitions) - but that is of little importance. The
overiding fact is that they altered intelligence to deceive
Parliament and public about the quality of evidence for invasion -
even if he really believed Iraq had WMD.

If no
Inquiry found that Blair and chums had altered the evidence to get
their way then they were not thorough, actually they are guilty of
hiding this fact.

Even if
our Prime Minister really believed the 7/7 London bombings (or
another) were committed by Iran - he cannot remove the 'qualitative
nature' of intelligence to invade Iran and kill millions - can
he?

Government
Surveilance

Or Stasi 2.0 as some call it. This is all a
scam, these are not good people, they lie and deceive you - don't
be fooled folks.

Here is proof - as if it were needed - that all
the surveillance in the world will not stop determined
foes.

I have long been concerned about this problem
and wrote this in March 2004 (onslashdot) - and before
this even:

Why do government have no respect for your right
to privacy?

This is a post that I have used many times
before :-)

Liberty has to be one of the most important
things in life. Well up there, behind health and safety of your
family, must be the right to go about your daily life without being
forced to live it under oppressive surveillance. For it surely is
oppression - being spied upon by the authorities in all that you
do. Knowing this information could be used against you, for any
purpose they see fit. The so-called all-seeing eye of God over you
- meant to instil respect of them and fear of
authority.

It
can be proven they use propaganda to deceive you into believing
them. How?

Ask Security Services in the US, UK, Indonesia
(Bali) or anywhere for that matter, to deny this:

Internet surveillance, using Echelon, Carnivore
or back doors in encryption, will not stop terrorists communicating
by other means - most especially face to face or personal
courier.

The Internet has become a tool for government to
snoop on their people - 24/7.

The terrorism argument is a dummy - total
bull*.

INTERNET SURVEILLANCE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO STOP
TERRORISTS - THAT IS SPIN AND PROPAGANDA

This propaganda is for several reasons,
including: a) making you feel safer b) to say the government are
doing something and c) the more malicious motive of privacy
invasion.

Government say about surveillance - "you've
nothing to fear - if you are not breaking the law"

This argument is made to pressure people into
acquiescence - else appear guilty of hiding something
illegal.

It
does not address the real reason why they want this information
(which they will deny) - they want a surveillance
society.

They wish to invade your basic human right to
privacy. This is like having somebody watching everything you do -
all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears will be open to
them.

This is everything - including phone calls and
interactive TV. Quote from ZDNET: "Whether you're just accessing a
Web site, placing a phone call, watching TV or developing a Web
service, sometime in the not to distant future, virtually all such
transactions will converge around Internet protocols."

"Why should I worry? I do not care if they know
what I do in my own home", you may foolishly say. Or, just as
dumbly, "They will not be interested in anything I
do".

This information will be held about you until
the authorities need it for anything at all. Like, for example,
here in UK when government looked for dirt on individuals of
Paddington crash survivors group. It was led by badly injured Pam
Warren. She had over 20 operations after the 1999 rail crash (which
killed 31 and injured many).

This group had fought for better and safer
railways - all by legal means. By all accounts a group of fine
outstanding people - with good intent.

So
what was their crime, to deserve this investigation?

It
was just for showing up members of government to be the
incompetents they are.

As
usual, government tried to put a different spin on the story when
they were found out. Even so, their intent was obvious - they
wanted to use this information as propaganda - to smear the
character of these good people.

Our honourable government would rather defile
the character of its citizens - rather than address their
reasonable concerns.

The government arrogantly presume this group of
citizens would not worry about having their privacy
invaded.

They can also check your outgoings match your
income and that you are paying enough tax. What do you think all
this privacy invasion is for? The War on Terrorism? You poor dupe.
All your finances for them to scrutinize; heaven help you if you
cannot account for every cent.

The authorities try make everything they say
sound perfectly reasonable.

e.g. Officials from US Defence Department agency
have said they want, quote: "the same level of accountability in
cyberspace that we now have in the physical world".

Do
they keep record of all the people that you send letters and faxes
to (and receive from)? Worse still - record the text? Do they
record your phone conversations? Do they keep a record of peoples
houses, shops and establishments you visit - or the magazines and
books you pick up to browse? Do they keep record of books you take
out of library? Do they keep record of purchases you make from the
shops?

Indeed - do government currently keep records of
everything that you say, touch and do in the physical world to
analyse?

No
they do not. So then - is that the same level of
accountability?

They wish to keep an electronic tag on you, like
some kind of animal. Actually it is even worse than this - like
some pervert sex offender - a child molester that they have to keep
track of.

Would ANY person of intelligence call that
accountability?

Do
not believe the lies of Government - even more of your money spent
on these measures will not protect us from terrorists. Every
argument they use is subterfuge - pure spin.

In
UK, the RIP Act is unjust - dim-witted ill-informed MPs believed
governments 'experts'. Remember - they will get everything about
you, your phone calls, emails, TV viewing - everything. It would be
like having a spy living in your house.

Americans - the Total Information Awareness
plan, USA Patriot act and Homeland Defence - you are generally more
technologically aware, are you really that easily
misled?

Quote from the U.S. Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency: "The goal of the Total Information Awareness (TIA)
program is to revolutionize the ability of the United States to
detect, classify and identify foreign terrorists -- and decipher
their plans -- and thereby enable the U.S. to take timely action to
successfully preempt and defeat terrorist acts."

The declared GOAL is to, quote: "identify
foreign terrorists" - what rubbish. They know you are American
citizen, not even a suspect foreigner - yet want to know what you
buy, where you travel - everything. They want to profile you, like
a criminal. I find it hard to believe that U.S. politicians are
that dumb to go along with this violation of the American Peoples
Rights. Looks like TIA initials stand for Totally Ignorant
Acceptance (for their propaganda).

It
should be noted that the UK government will be violating the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights - which we have
adopted.

Article 12 states: "No one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or
correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such
interference or attacks."

You may be interested in the psychology of this
type of surveillance. Here is a piece, wrote by another who did a
better job of explaining than I could:

Foucault focused on Bentham's prison model, or
the Penopticon as Bentham called it - which literally means, that
which sees all. The Penopticon prison, which was popular in the
early nineteenth century, was designed to allow guards to see their
prisons, but not allow prisoners to see guards. The building was
circular, with prisoner's cells lining the outer diameter, and in
the center of the circle was a large, central observational tower.
At any given time, guards could be looking down into each
prisoner's cells - and thereby monitor potentially unmoral behavior
- but carefully-placed blinds prevented prisoners from seeing the
guards, thereby leaving them to wonder if they were being monitored
at any given moment. It was Bentham's belief that the "gaze" of the
Panopticon would force prisoners to behave morally. Like the
all-seeing eye of God, they would feel shame at their wicked ways.
In effect, the coercive nature of the Panopticon was built into its
very structure.

The government will be watching all you
do.

You will be good people now - won't
you?

Or
else!

I
know what is possible. I also know from my own experience with a
government department that they will abuse personal information. In
my last job (at one of the largest food manufacturing plants in
Europe) my responsibilities included stand-alone and networked data
capture systems (not solely) - and the automation of turning large
amounts of data into information. These were reports on analysis of
the data for all levels of management - to any amount of detail. I
cannot stress enough - all your personal thoughts, hopes and fears
will be open to them.

Additional:
Some ignorant people, have wrote things like, "just don't put your
personal fears and hopes and deeply personal revelations online for
the whole world to see". They thought I was just writing about
social media. Obviously you know I was also writing about your
searches for information on things about your personal life - or
health problems - not just your fantasies (sexual or
otherwise).

Terrorism

I
really have trouble believing these scares - entirely the fault of
authorities using lies and propaganda. For example - we officially
had 4,000 dangerous blood-thirsty terrorists in the UK. 2,000 that
we knew about and another 2,000 that we do not know about -
according to former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens
in May 2007. 2,000 more that *we don't know about* - why not make
the number much scarier - say it is the tip of
iceburg?

Yes -
unbelievable is it not - they all must be the most lazy or
incompetent terrorists on the whole planet - not to attack us on a
weekly basis. Still - they have to do something to make us agree to
mass surveillance and have our privacy taken away. Like I wrote
above - the terrorists would have to be complete imbeciles now
since NSA whistleblower Snowden to use the internet or phone and
not use couriers or face to face communication instead.

You are
much more likely to be struck by lightning than injured with a
terrorist bomb - how much time off your life do you waste worrying
about that?

It is
your fault we have terrorists - not ours for killing and maiming a
million innocent men, women, children and babies with an illegal
war.

My
fellow leaders and I marched for the twelve people killed in France
last week.

We
wouldn't do it for all those we killed in Iraq because they don't
matter.

Regards,

Mr
Cameron

###

God and
Life

I am
agnostic - but have posited the possibility of 'God' - the creator
of universe and life - being more an intelligent 'living' force
than a living being - which most people take 'Him' as (even
atheists in their denial).

Intelligent
as in following certain rules to create life (like you following a
plan) and not thinking as such e.g. doing things on a whim. All the
parameters to make the universe and life had to be exact e.g. the
universe could not have been created had the force of big bang been
more - it would have come apart too fast to make galaxies and solar
systems - or collapsed if too weak. Same thing with gravity. There
are supposedly 200 known factors that had to be 'just right'. This
can be seen on the minute scale also.

Quote:
Microbes discovered by deepest marine drill
analysed

The
team found that microbes, despite having no light, no oxygen,
barely any water and very limited nutrients, thrived in the cores.
Elizabeth Trembath-Reichert, from the California Institute of
Technology, who is part of the team that carried out the research,
said: "We keep looking for life, and we keep finding it, and it
keeps surprising us as to what it appears to be capable
of."

BTW: athests are being closed-minded. No,
I'm not agnostic on human fantasies like fairies and Flying
Spaghetti Monster, just question the possibilities of the origins
of life, universe and everything.Why could 'dark matter' not
have already existed before the 'big bang' and the universe spread
into it?

###

Capitalism and Socialism

It is successful capitalism until it fails -
then it needs socialism to bail it out - proven with the
crash.

Capitalism is a corrupt system evolved out of
greed and power - not one that I would choose.

###

Job Creator Myth

The REALITY: does a factory get created with
jobs as a main reason - or is hundreds of jobs gone if it can be
done cheaper by machine?

Jobs are used only if necessity - 'job creators'
do not want an expense that has wages, holidays, sickness,
pensions, NI, can strike or have babies...

As
for the 'Wealth Creator' myth - guess who they create wealth for -
themselves - government applaud greed (for obvious
reasons).

I
am not saying we should be Luddites or that there is no economic
gain to having new factories - just not lie about the greed - why
they start business.

The customers are the ones that pay for these
jobs, machinery and profits - it is a symbiotic realitionship -
they are more the 'job creators'.

###

New Labour & Socialism

Quote:
He (Cameron) also accused Labour of betraying its traditional
values and no longer representing working people.

New
Labour follow stupid capitalist neoliberal Tory policies like
selling council housing - they cannot even see the simple fact that
council housing should not be sold as it drives up housing
benefits, rents and governments to make more cuts in benefit to
those in need.

The
idea came realised by Thatcher's government - they not only hoped
to buy votes - but also yoke the workers like bosses used to with a
tied cottage and also remove cheap rented social housing for rich
landlords to exploit.

I will
state yet again - privatisation was a fraud - selling to the public
what they already owned. Do you want them to sell more property
that you own - your car or home perhaps?

Police
have a duty to return stolen property without compensation - so you
can "magically undo a mistake on that scale" (somebody said you
couldn't).

The
Tories were right about the fact that New Labour helped ruin the
country – but they fail to say it is because they followed these
Tory policies and allowed the financial industry free reign to
defraud us.

###

Death
Penalty

I am against the death penalty even for mass
murderering war crims like Blair and Bush - who killed more
innocent people than the vile 911 terrorist. It is most perverse
and sick to say 'murder is wrong and only terrible people murder'
and then use murder yourself.

###

The following
subjects are work in progress:

All
subjects to be expanded. Please forgive mix of fonts - see my
skilled.org for a better example of poor
website design (it was the old skilful.com site).

Are the Financial
Authorities Corrupt?

Firstly - how do you know this is not a
spurious claim by somebody of dubious
intelligence?

Here is
proof that our accusation of cover-up by financial
regulators is valid. I won this official complaint against
the ill-fated FSA for corrupt behaviour in defending Barclays
against our claim they defrauded lots of their customers, including
ourselves. Possibly a criminal act by FSA and
definately evasion of responsibilities as it actively aids and
abets culpable/ criminal activity. Please do not be taken in -
rebranding and changing their name to the Financial Conduct
Authority (FCA) does not mean the dogma or the people are
different. They perhaps believe that if there is no criminal
prosecutions then that will help 'market confidence'. This is the
main reason why the banks crashed and the finance industry are
allowed to get away with with mass 'mis-selling' (fraud) to the
public and why the financial industry can never be
trusted. The financial authorities aid and abet
corrupt firms with cover-up. There has to be prosecutions and jail
so they know there is real personal danger in acting wrongfully,
fines are ultimately paid by others.

This is ongoing (2013) with Barclays and the FOS
both altering our customer complaint. Thebehaviourof the SFO was just as
corrupt.

Justice delayed is justice
denied.

If the financial regulators 'lack integrity'
then what is the point of them exactly -and who else do you
know that has proved this?

Head over to WoolwichSucks.co.uk to see what
Barclays, the Financial Services Authority (rebranded to the FCA),
Serious Fraud Office and Financial Ombudsman Service have been up
to. It is why we have big 'mis-selling' scams and the banking crash
- with their pretence of financial regulation.

You can make your own mind up from the
documented evidence there. This involves recent activity by
Barclays and the FOS (2013) - also it goes right to the top - not
just the staff. It was admitted that Endowment
Mortgages are "unfit for purpose" by Walter Merricks in 2001 (when
head of the FOS). The financial authorities only warned us
of this when loss was imminent - yet they must have known years
before this. But they kept quiet - guess why.

They will certainly all deny that they acted
criminally. What they cannot deny with the evidence is the fact
they were evasive and tried to 'win' with attrition by refusing to
address the arguments that were put to them. Fact is different from
mere opinion, especially when shown in their own
communications.

Whilst authorities aid and abet by
protecting the corrupt we will have more financial
disasters. Remember what happened the last time we had a
government- sponsored pensions revolution in the 1980's? What about
the latest government- sponsored pensions revolution.
The 'Workplace Pensions' - the "We're all in". All
in what - is it the latest pension 'mis-selling' scandal? Given the
financial industries record, do you have any idea?

Whilst on pensions. Regarding George Osborne
2014 pensions overhaul allowing people to cash in their
pension funds. One quote, "Chancellor insists pensioners
should be trusted with their finances". Insincere twonk - do you
honestly believe he thinks that. This stupid policy should be
reversed.

It is Tory madness. This is as bad as when they
sold council houses - a public asset to be used to home those on
low pay. Now we have private landlords making a fortune and housing
benefit we cannot afford. This will end in a financial
bloodbath - worse than any mis-selling (fraud) scam in the
past.

Supporters are:
1. Deliberate naive about millions of peoples ability to be able to
properly invest in adequate provision for their future.
2. Deliberate naive about the finance industry honesty - to not
'mis-sell' financial products/ services to pensioners
(defraud).
3. Deliberate naive about personal financial advisors selling
investments which reward the client best and not the
advisor.

Supporters want to make a better deal for
themselves so are willing to allow millions of old people to be
defrauded. Unfortunately that is considered a perfectly acceptable
Tory (selfish) viewpoint. How it is reasonable that people can be
sacrificed for financial gain of others I am at a loss to
understand.

Even
so-called 'intelligent' people will be persuaded that they can do
better, as with 'mis-selling' of endowment mortgages. I was one of
them.

If the problem is annuities then tackle that.
Government should not abdicate their responsibility, chuck the
pension pots at people and say 'There, now bog off and get on with
it'. Government actually 'robbed' and ruined our pensions in 1997 -
up until then they were doing very well. They have a duty to put
things right and return the hundreds of billions 'stolen'.
Chancellor Gordon Brown knew the possible consequences. He was not
ignorant of the risks.

Why do these people
in authority not know jailing the guilty individuals is a bigger
deterrent to 'mis-selling' (defrauding) the
public?

In fact the Crown Prosecution
Service say this:

8. Prosecution of a company should
not be seen as a substitute for the prosecution of criminally
culpable individuals such as directors, officers, employees, or
shareholders. Prosecuting such individuals provides a
strong deterrent against future corporate wrongdoing.
Equally, when considering prosecuting individuals, it is important
to consider the possible liability of the company where the
criminal conduct is for corporate
gain.

On that specific
point - can somebody please remind me - I have looked everywhere
and cannot find the answer. With the banking collapse, why has
nobody been prosecuted? They knew they were gambling with customers
money. It was the same criminal reckless behaviour that 'rogue
traders' have been jailed for: Kweku Adoboli - Nick Leeson -
Matthew Taylor - or are the bankers being protected?

Bankers should be
licenced with wages and bonuses capped - else no licence. It is a
lie that they could not find anybody good to do the job for
£250,000 (proposed maximum for fair wage legislation). Even paying
millions is no guarantee they will be any good - as the recent
disaster proved beyond doubt. It is a lie they need to pay millions
to get the skill. Good riddence if they have insatiable greed and
want more than anybody else in UK - they should
go.

This is not a massive great victory for the public - it is minor
propaganda by our corrupt government to pretend that the public are
being looked after.

These bankers are still overpaid and get massive bonuses - and even
Barclays bankers just got higher bonuses despite a 30% fall in
profits.

And worst of all - still nobody in UK has been held to account for
crimes that 'rogue traders' have been imprisoned for -
irresponsible gambling with other peoples money. Not one person has
spent a single day in jail for destroying the financial state of
our country. Government continue to protect them.

As further proof -
of government helping criminals escapes:

Quote: A new
offence of aiding and abetting tax evasion and aggressive tax
avoidance is expected to be included in the budget next month,
George Osborne has said in his first comprehensive parliamentary
response to the HSBC scandal.http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2015/feb/23/jack-straw-and-malcolm-rifkind-respond-to-cash-for-access-allegations-politics-live-blog

There
does not need a new law - we have one already, called aiding and
abetting. This is a false excuse to let the guilty off. Government
are complicit.

Taxation and why
the 'fair' flat rate tax for everybody is a forthcoming
con.

Government know that they punish the poorest and
middle income the most with taxation. They know that after the
bills are paid that you have little (if anything) left over. They
know that taxation is a greater burden on the poor working class,
what Cameron calls "hard working families" (to get you on side),
than on the rich.

Yes, it is you they squeeze until the pips
squeak, not the rich who whinge and say it is them getting
squeezed. Are the rich left with near nothing after they have paid
bills and tax? Please do not believe their deceptions or fall for
their spin e.g. the rich pay more of the UK tax bill
now than ever before.

You must have heard the propaganda
(usually a Tory) saying, "the top 1% pay 30% of UK's (income) tax"
- obviously meant to imply the rich pay loads more than their fair
share. They seem to feel very sorry for this 'poor' 1% being picked
on, perhaps themselves or their friends. Income tax is about a
third of our taxes and they usually leaving out the part about it
being income tax to imply they pay a third of the total tax bill to
make them sound more picked upon. The top 1% get more than £160,000
and up to many millions - so do not cry too hard for them - you or
I should be so hard done by.

Update: PMQ's Wednesday 29 October 2014.
David Cameron stated, "...and the top 1% of taxpayers are paying
27% of all income tax—a higher percentage than ever happened under
the last Labour Government". Please don't insult our intelligence -
why do you have this contempt of us?

Pay the poor workers these massive rises
the CEO's get and the rest of us will pay much more tax also.

As I say, the reason is most obvious, the
rich/poor gap is getting ever so much wider. Greedy fat-cats give
themselves massive wage rises - but not to the employees. Can you
really not see that this is very basic maths and purely
common-sense? Honestly - you do not understand simple
maths?

Clearly the starting rate of tax should be much
higher to lessen the burden on poorest, everybody benefits from
this, £15k at least. Minimum pay is crap.

A so-called 'fair' flat rate will simply mean
that the rich will pay even less tax and therefore those on a lower
wage will pay a bigger portion of the UK tax bill. It is a scam -
any savings (e.g. administrative) help the rich not
you. The government know most the 'legal' tax loopholes and can
easily close them.

BTW: ISA's are used as an example of why
avoidance is legal. ISA's are not tax avoidance per se - the
government want you to take them out, indeed even advertise the
fact. Do government advertise other ways to avoid tax? They are a
tax incentive on saving after you paid income tax, totally
different - except to crooks. Both tax avoidance and evasion of
income tax should be a criminal offence.

This is not about envy but simply about fairness
versus the deceiving of the public for rich and powerful peoples
greed.

LIE:
Inequality is at its lowest since 1986

There had been articles in the press and media
since the end of 2013 that the ONS had been saying we are now a
more equal society under Cameron. You did not need my good maths
skills to know this was a deception.

This was clearly a lie so I wrote to John
Pullinger and Glen Watson (CEO and DG of the ONS):

"...please
allow me to ask a question which on first look you may consider
insulting – but it is merely to settle a doubt in my mind about
your impartiality.

There
has been talk in the media about inequality in the UK coming down –
using your information and analysis of
data.

The
question is; why do you provide information that the facts prove to
be clearly untrue e.g. FTSE 100 directors have increased their
wages 27% in 2012 and 14% in 2013 - whilst peoples wages have been
held down or cut.

Unless
you really believe that “inequality is at its lowest level since
1986” is “absolutely true” – even though it is a fact the gap
between the richest and poorest gets wider every
year.

I am
not an idiot – I used to be a manager in accounts looking after
data-capture systems and turning the data into information myself.
The Gini coefficient has been used to say income inequality has
come down – using statistics to try deceive us. It simply
measures frequency distribution, not the widening gap between
poorest and richest.

Why use
statistics that could deceive the public for political motive –
indeed that are being used to do so?

[Would
it not be honourable to] issue a clarification, including that we
are actually becoming a less equal
society?

This
would settle any doubt in my mind about your impartiality – [point
about always under-estimating net immigration figure and never
over-estimating].

Yours
Sincerely"

They completely evaded my questions - nothing in their reply
addressed these points. That makes them at very least dishonourable
gentlemen.

Government LIE when they say, 'Inequality is at
its lowest since 1986'. The fact of the matter is that the gap
between richest and poorest gets wider every year. You know the
truth - the fat-cats have removed their wage differentials and have
been giving themselves up to 20-30% wage rise year on year whilst
giving workers a couple of percent (if they are lucky and not had a
wage cut). Even in a really bad year they gave themselves
14%.

Google yourself and see headlines like: 2012
FTSE 100 directors enjoy 27pc pay rises. What pay rise did you get
in the recession? Bet not 27%.

Government, ONS and greedy bosses lie when they
say we are getting more equal - tell them the truth - that they are
all liars. Politicians cannot use the word in Parliament - so if
anybody tells you that inequality has come down - just look them in
the eye and point at them. They will know what it
means.

It is obvious to get the fairest society with
nobody getting several hundreds times the annual wage of their
workers - that is just sickening greed.

Though it is only right that there should be
wage differentials between jobs - being paid more for greater
responsibilities and skills.

However the top bosses have decided to remove
their differentials - rising their wages by many times year on year
- whilst holding yours down,

I am only talking of introducing fair wage
legislation - not wealth sharing - just more equal wage structure -
there will be no increase in the total wage bill.

I personally believe a boss should not receive
more than ten times that of any employee - about right for a
rich/poor gap.

With the rich/poor gap actually getting ever
wider - it is clearly no longer just greed - it is avarice -
insatiable greed.

Indeed - it was always known that a wide
rich/poor gap was wrong - this legislation has been advocated
before by a famous greek philosopher.

Plato (427-347 B.C.): "Any city, however small,
is in fact divided into two, one the city of the poor, the other of
the rich; these are at war with one another." (The
Republic)

Also, "The form of law which I propose would be
as follows: In a state which is desirous of being saved from the
greatest of all plagues -- not faction, but rather distraction --
there should exist among the citizens neither extreme poverty nor,
again, excessive wealth, for both are productive of great evil . .
.

Now the legislator should determine what
is to be the limit of poverty or of
wealth."

Quote from news article: Just what is fair pay?
Plato said the income of the highest paid in society should never
amount to more than five times that of the lowest
paid.

Plato was right – there is an implicit agreement
in society that the rich cannot simply exploit their power
to unreasonably enrich themselves.

Legislation
should cut top pay to £250,000 and then give them half inflation
rate rises yearly. Those below should get rises in line with
inflation. This then should continue until the ratio of 10 to one
is reached between top and bottom.

BTW:
Socrates believed that injustice was more than doing wrong - it was
not doing right.

###

NHS with PFI = Public Financing Immorality
(greed of those that profit millions from NHS
spending)

Quote:
David Cameron warned NHS in danger of collapse within five
years.

Strange,
many of these reports do not give the main reason - not an aging
population that cannot be avoided - but greedy rich people actually
profitting from it. The government are quiet about the cause -
because they are to blame.

Yes -
PFI - rich people taking millions from our taxes. They ripped us
off by privatising everything else - there was only privatising
finance left. At least one commentator had it sussed two years ago
- though many of us knew decades ago.

BTW:
Hospitals should not be paying any 'rent' - is this not obvious.
They should be bought and paid for by government.

Quote:
How PFI is crippling the NHS.

We can
still afford to pay for universal healthcare – but only if we stop
using NHS funds to prop up banks and equity investors

Quote:
Buildings in Devon funded by private finance initiatives (PFI) will
cost nearly five times more than if just government funded, the BBC
understands.Government
figures show the PFI cost of buildings such as schools, hospitals
armed forces' accommodation and other major projects will be nearly
£2.4bn.

Quote:The
717 PFI contracts currently under way across the UK are funding new
schools, hospitals and other public facilities with a total capital
value of £54.7bn, but the overall ultimate cost
will reach £301bn by the time they have been paid
off over the coming decades.

Why are
people in denial about the facts? That £301bn was in 2012 - the
case will be MUCH worse now.

Certain
people are getting very rich off our NHS spending. What risk for
them - when have they lost money? It is money for nothing - PFI is
a rip-off. Wake up folks - we are being squeezed dry by corrupt
people for the gain of others more wealthy than us.

One
last point - what sort of people would want the NHS privatised -
for extremely greedy fat-cats to profit to from our
taxes?

###

Quote:
“I sometimes get asked: why do I believe in tax cuts so much? It’s
simple, because I trust people more than I do politicians,” he will
say.

He went
on to say, "This is because we are all a bunch of liars -
especially me and the Tory party" - obviously a joke - he would not
admit that.

There
is certainly no arguing with the last part - but unfortunately we
need tax to pay for essentials - which the Tories want us all to
pay for privately - so the poorest suffer even more and their rich
friends get even richer.

They
use a undeniable truth to sell their lies and deception to us -
this is the most basic tool of propagandists.

David
Cameron justifies tax cuts for the rich as rewarding
aspiration.

There
is 'aspirational' and then there is Tory greed and avarice - for
bankers, fat-cats and their like.

###

Mass
Immigration

This is
NOT about racism or xenophobia as some disgusting
people try to pretend it is about. Many of us would do the same
given the chance to go to a country with four times the wages and a
better life style. This is about protecting the future of our
country for the sake of our children and
grandchildren.

Even
without mass immigration, we have
to get better food/ water/ energy security - this will mean looking
at desalination plants or massive pipelines from Scotland - also
possible safer nuclear energy
(thorium?)
- increasing field usage for food crops and farms... When some
unexpected disaster strikes (e.g. world grain shortage through
wheat blight), politicians will say, "How were we to know this
disaster would happen - how could we plan for
it?".

The
media are perpetrators of others propaganda. Those that want cheap
labour and to keep your wages held down. There are also those who
cannot see the bigger picture and those which want more people from
their own country to come join them of course.

Firstly
- the net financial gain is a lie - even if it is only a 'mars
bar'. It does not include all costs e.g. immigrant gang credit card
fraud and other crimes. Only idiots believe government figures
about this. Hello to these fools - guess why government fiddle
them. Also any transitional controls are merely delay or a
disincentive at best and is certainly not controlling immigration
levels.

I must
have heard nearly all the so-called reasons for this from
pro-immigration supporters. Unless you can come up with something
new you will lose this argument e.g. 'we wouldn't have a NHS were
it not for immigration'. We could have had managed immigration for
doctors and nurses - though we should have better training in the
UK and be supplying our own, not simply taking away doctors and
nurses from poorer countries. Education and training has got
abysmal over decades - it can be fixed. Another of favourite
argument from these blinkered people is, 'we need lots of
immigration to pay for our growing elderly'. Err - as far as the UK
is concerned, this is our biggest influx ever - how many more are
needed on top of current immigration - 500,000 net? Also - don't
the immigrants themselves ever get old, don't they have children
and grandchildren who also get old, this is a massive pyramid
scam.

BTW:80,000
UK students are told they can't train as a nurse - despite
recruiting almost 6,000 overseas nurses (2013: 4 out of
5). It
costs the NHS £70,000 to train a nurse for three years – the same
amount it costs for 3 qualified foreign
nurses. Our politicians and authorities
are clearly corrupt to deny our youngsters this work and to give it
to people in other countries. It is a propaganda lie to say we
cannot get enough British nurses - they do not want to train them.
The requirement for a degree now does not help. The Blair legacy
does not help either - our country did not need 50% of workers to
get a university qualification for a job. This was to give them
hope, which they knew was false for many - and that they would end
up in debt of course.

The
bosses do not train any more to anything like they used to. In
early 1970's, I was trained by EITB (Engineering Industry Training
Board) as a Mechanical Engineering Technician Trainee - and later
as a Telecommunications Technician Trainee with PYE
Telecom.

1964 -
Engineering Industry Training Board
The EITB had the power to impose a financial training levy on
employers over a certain size. Employers who could prove a good
track record of training activity could be granted exemption from
most of the levy..

Corrupt
governments would rather give skilled jobs to foreign workers than
train our British kids up to higher standards.

Quote:
The government's plan will see an expansion in [doctor] training
places from 6,000 to 7,500 a year.

We need
a moratorium - close the doors to all immigration (except
essential) until an open objective analysis is done. This should be
about where we are and where we want to be on UK population. This
should take into account all factors - not just the usual focus by
the dumbing down media e.g. jobs and housing or that touched on
like crime. Though they misrepresent this and say it has brought
down crime - they try deceive you and talk about per capita. In
actual fact the numbers of crimes have soared - more murders, rape,
child molestation, theft, buglary, card fraud, et cetera... Here in
Haverhill a local man had his head smashed in with a claw hammer by
an immigrant.

This
analysis should also examine serious things which so far have been
ignored - like food, water and energy security. Also things that
negatively affect our way of life, such as increased NHS usage and
road congestion. Whatever corrupt party are in government they will
'solve' the congestion problem by getting you off the road with
'road pricing' - spinning it as a 'green tax'. No 'road to riches'
with our government - it will be 'roads for the rich'.

Though
I doubt the authorities will have an open public Inquiry - because
of the obvious outcome. Of course not pre-judging the result, but
you do not need qualifications in immigration to see it is making
things worse. Though these may be the wrong 'experts' to ask, as it
seems they have a massive blind spot and are
even afraid to answer a simple question about
"displacement". Are they really that
frightened to answer? Anyhow, it is like we are all on a big
bus heading for the edge of a cliff, a bus full of blind people -
with a foot hard on the accelerator.

We need
the moratorium because you don't try fix a sinking Titanic whilst
smashing more holes below the waterline - immigration makes all
problems much worse. We should have had points based system two
decades ago - from the EU also. We likely need to let in less than
the number emigrating.

We
cannot save the world from a population explosion (without spraying
countries with Nestorone or some other contraceptive drug -
which I do not advocate) - but we may be able to save the UK. That
is if it is not too late.

I have
also said many times - the figures are all BS anyway. We are being
swamped, the authorities and MPs lie to us about it, those that are
corrupt - not just simply incompetent to protect their voters and
constituents e.g. from increased competition for jobs and
housing.

How can
you trust the ONS when they admit they undercount the number of
immigrants. What makes it worse is MPs have known they falsify
figures for years - to help against dissent of mass immigration -
like positive multiculturalism policy. The odds that the ONS
understimate should be 50/50 - if it was unbiased and not
deliberately flawed towards giving one result. Give just one year
when the ONS overestimated the number of immigrants - you
cannot.

2013 is
likely BS also, said to be 212,00 net (532,000 in 320,000 out).
However, "National Insurance numbers given to foreigners - an
important indicator of immigration levels - showed a 19% rise to
617,000 in 2013", TheCourier. 617,000 -
532,000 = 85,000 more, therefore the figure is nearer 297,000. In
fact it is very likely to be much higher as this is only those that
have registered for National Insurance. NI is iissued for 16th
birthday - which means that many of those coming will not get a NI
number for their children. The number of NI numbers and immigrants
should tally over time - they do not.

Quote:
The net flow of migrants into the UK over a 10-year period was
underestimated by nearly 350,000, the Office for National
Statistics says.

Polticians
know that mass immigration is making our problems much worse. They
know they are making it harder for their constituents to get a job
and a home. Yes - our 'honourable' politicians deliberately ruin
the future for our children by taking away their jobs and
homes.

Government
use financial benefit to us as the reason. This 4p per week benefit
(3 Jan 2007) to us is best case case scenario (using government
fiddled figures) and does not include all non-attributable costs.
Immigrants are generally with the lower paid requiring benefits to
top up wages. Governments want cheap labour immigration primarily
to keep workers wages down.

We have
to get out of EU if we want control of our borders. The EU is a
scam anyway, they allow non-compatible countries to join e.g.
having a quarter of our minimum pay - of course they are going to
flood over here. We are not going to flood Poland with our workers.
Many would though to a country with a wage four times ours -
individual immigrants themselves are not to blame - it is our
government who want cheap labour to hold wages down. We should have
what we voted for - a common market with no export /import
duties.

The
reason this has been allowed to continue is because the censorship
of debate - to allow supporters of immigration (inc. government)
their way.

People
have said that leaving EU to control our borders would lose us
jobs. They pretend we could not have a mutually beneficial trade
agreement with no import or export duties between us and the EU.
Even taking what they say as true - had we not allowed millions
immigrants to take 'our' jobs then we would have many times more
jobs available than we would lose. Did we get 212,000 (297,000)
more jobs from EU in 2013 for taking these immigrants
in?

As for idiots who say things like,
"Multiculturalism isn't an ideology, it's a fact of life":Multiculturalism
is a policy, being positive about other cultures without proper
scrutiny e.g. sending those making reports aboutchild-molesting
criminals in
Rotherhamon 'diversity' courses because of the race
of criminals, instead of prosecuting these vile criminals. Those
like you are the reason problems persist.

We have
an (inflated) multicultural society - which is different from
multiculturalism
policy.Is this
really so hard for you idiotic fools to understand?

Multiculturalism is not simply a description -
it is propaganda policy brought in by a corrupt New Labour party to
aid mass immigration and to lie that it is positive. It allowed
Female Genital Mutilation to continue - despite supposedly being
illegal nobody was prosecuted. It allowed young girls to be forced
into marriage. It allows the public to be fed Halal meat - a
backward step of bringing religion back into our food.

As to asylum seekers and refugees - we should
have very few. When they are in France or other EU countries they
are NOT fleeing violence, war and persecution - they are safe and
not a refugee - they are financial immigrants.

Quote: More Europe migrants to gain
access to full UK benefits
Migrants from the eight countries which joined the EU in 2004 will
be able to claim full benefits in the UK for the first time from
May (2011).

In the
Guardian 6/3/2014 is
the story: Report reveals little evidence foreign migrants
put British workers out of jobs - Because if immigrants
did not come here to take British jobs then the work would do
itself presumably. Are people really that dense they believe this
tripe? Honestly?

A
supporter of mass immigration posted to me saying that we need
immigrants because "Migrants are predominantly young, single and
well motivated - exactly the type of workers whose productivity is
high". Yet, do we not have our own - one million unemployed British
youngsters, "young, single and well motivated - exactly the
type of workers whose productivity is high"?

Your
sons, daughters and grandchildren - many of whom have been deceived
into thinking that paying thousands for extra education would get
them good jobs. You supporters of mass immigration want to stick
our youngsters on the scrapheap and replace them with foreign
workers. Are you all proud of yourselves - you should be disgusted.
Everybody else can see you are wrong - what is the matter with
you?

BTW:
The main parties are entirely responsible for the rise of UKIP. If
they had took reasonable measures and controlled immigration the
problems would not be as bad now. Only idiots believe both the main
parties 'tough act' e.g. Cameron knew his "Tens of thousands"
pledge was a lie - impossible to keep.

Quote:It
suggests "displacement" - the number of UK workers unemployed as a
consequence of immigration - is well below the figure used by
ministers of 23 for every 100 additional immigrants. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26435000

This
latest propaganda is the stupid idea that immigrants do little to
put British workers out of a job, "displacement". If the immigrants
did not come then guess who else would get the jobs. Yes - British
workers. Do not believe the lies. My wife has done the cleaning
jobs that British workers are supposed not to want - we both have
done low paid factory jobs that we Brits are told we do not want.
Millions of us have. Millions are unemployed and want a job or to
come off part-time hours (or zero hour contracts) onto full-time.
With zero hours we are back to the dark ages, when workers
stood at the factory gate, waiting to see if the well-fed
boss would pick them. Saying, "I'll have you, you and you". Work
hardest and don't upset him or he'll not ask you back
again.

Think
about what they say. We have family & friends that
work looking after the elderly. What jobs will we Brits not do -
that only foreigners will?

To
prove the emperor wears no clothes I
tweeted migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk. They would not answer
the simple question - who else would get the jobs if immigrants did
not come. This is clearly because the story that 'immigrants only
take a few jobs away from British workers' is complete
BS.

These
are supposed to be learned people, experts on the subject,
academics. They treat us like imbeciles - when they are the ones
who are idiots, if they think we would all fall for such a pile of
intellectual tripe. They and politicians need a kick up the
backside for such contempt of the public. They are all destroying
our country using lies and deception to do so.

Polticians know that mass immigration is making our problems
worse.

They know they are making it harder for their constituents to
get a job and a home.

Somebody wrote: ...so, linking immigration to 'Food
Security' you think, Mad[World], that if immigration is curbed or
stopped, the UK will somehow be exempt from any future catastrophic
effects, say this wheat bug thing, on the global food
supply....what
was that about low intelligence?

Reply: Oh dear, you are aware that since we had Blair we
have had net immigration of 200,000 plus, using ONS fiddled figures
always underestimating.

If we
managed immigration we could have had net loss of 200,000 every
year and still had upto 100,000+ essential immigrants come in every
year.

Indeed
in 2013 was said to be 212,00 net (532,000 in 320,000 out), we
could have let 100,000 in and been 220,000 net
loss.

That
would ALLEVIATE problems with UK food security.

"...what
was that about low intelligence?"

You are
not of low intelligence - though you give this appearance - I never
said or implied we will "be exempt from any future catastrophic
effects" - did I?

This is
about preparing for future catastrophic events, which are bound to
happen, be it a world crisis in our crops with drought or disease
or whatever.

BTW: I
do not advocate any fascist-type population control - indeed I say
so on my website: We cannot save the world from a population
explosion (without spraying countries with Nestorone or some other
contraceptive drug - which I do not advocate), but we may be able
to save the UK. That is if, not too late.

Fora posts and
misc to be sorted:

I
sometimes use the pseudonym of MadWorld on forums (because it is).
Most the press and TV help spread propaganda - they are not the
media but the 'madia'. For example, maps on BBC etc. of Israel/
Palestine conflict show them a more equal size - when Israel
actually occupy most of it.The
word "anti-semitism" is misused by evil peopleto mean
anti-Jew or anti-Israel - because Arabs are also
Semites. And not all Jews
are Zionists. So, to start.

PALESTINE

Anti-Zionism
is not anti-Semitism (anti-Jew), those that say
it is prove themselves to be the most vile of people, to slur the
innocent with such terrible lies.

The
maps above show how Palestinians are wiping Israel off the map -
for those idiots who believe the propaganda - the reverse is true.
Yep, Israel is guilty of committing the actual crime they accuse
Hamas of wanting to commit. Israel are the land-thieving
aggressors. The murder and violence is a lot worse coming from the
Israeli side. Palestinians killed a few people with thousands of
their rockets, Israelis killed thousands witha few of their
missiles. Is this response proportional?

Quote:
United Nations Security Council resolution 446, adopted on 22 March
1979, concerned the issue of Israeli settlements in the "Arab
territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem".[1]
This refers to the Palestinian territories of the West Bank, East
Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip as well as the Syrian Golan
Heights.

In the Resolution, the Security Council determined: "that the
policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the
Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967 have no
legal validity and constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a
comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East"

The Resolution was adopted by 12 votes to none, with 3 abstentions
from Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States of
America.

We are the biggest supporters of America and Israel - America
allowing the murder and abuse of the Palestine people by Israel -
doing nothing to stop it - indeed we both supply the arms for
Israel to kill them.

We and America supply bombs to Israel and bandages to Palestine. We
both give real support to the aggressors and just pity to the
victims.

Quote:UK
government reviewing £8bn of arms sales to Israel - 4 August
2014.

It is
called 'collective punishment' - it is a violation of the laws of
war and the Geneva Conventions. Indeed, Israel uses German World
War 2 policy of Sippenhaftung and make innocent families pay for
crimes of others. Also even directly targetting the homes of Hamas,
killing their wives and children.

If this
was any other country other than Israel doing this then our
government would condemn their government as criminals.

With
exception of America (who can do no wrong in eyes of UK government)
of course - they can unlawfully invade countries and we will help
them in a mass killing of civilians and soldiers defending their
country from illegal invaders.

This is why we are a target - we give weapons to kill innocent men,
women, children and babies - our government ministers are murderous
evil b's.

Talking
about targetting - the excuse used by Israel that they do not
target civilians. For some strange reason, using twisted logic,
they think firing a missile on a house is not deliberate murder.
Obviously, they use this line for political motive. They target ALL
people in the house - they do not want any to escape in case it is
the Hamas member they want to kill - true or false? The wife and
children are also targetted - this is why it is collective
punishment. Nobody is saying the Israeli government wish the wife
and children were killed - not least for bad publicity - but all
are targets.

Some
say it is a border dispute - but that is where the complainant
says, 'the border should be here' and the other says 'no there'.
What we have here is one side saying we want our border here - then
later saying we want it here to take more land - then later saying
we want it here to take more land...

Only to
a simple minded person is it a 'border dispute' - there are
millions of them about. What it is, in fact, is the grabbing more
and more land. Sicko's try pretend this is just about anti-Semitism
or anti-Jewish agenda (to protect an evil state government). This
is just criticism of support for land theft.

The
BBC are biased, even refusing to air a national charity appeal -
quote; The BBC was in crisis last night as politicians including
government ministers, religious leaders and senior members of its
own staff condemned the decision not to broadcast a charity appeal
to help the stricken people of Gaza rebuild their homes.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/jan/24/bbc-gaza-palestine-aid-appeal

Everybody
knows that Israel want to keep all the land they stole - to profit
from crime by attrition and time - even those that defend
Israel. Israel was born with terrorist attacks from 1944
onward. They murdered British, American and Arabs. There was also
terrible ethnic cleansing - the destruction of more than 400
villages, 11 towns and the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinian Arabs.
Do not let anybody pretend anything different.

Certainly
nobody denies there was evil done to the Jews by Germans - but
there is no excuse to do evil to others. Is there?

Zionists
call people that support Palestine 'anti-Semite' - when
Palestinians are Semites. They are also call them 'anti-Jew' -
which is another sick slur. This shows their nature - when all that
these people want is for the aggressive land theft and aggression
to stop - so peace process can begin. A cease-fire allows Israel to
continue stealing land - it should also include a clause to return
stolen land.

The
Zionists could have had all the compassion in the world - instead
they act in a way that makes them hated by Arabs. I personally
believe that the best solution (after a single state Palisrael?)
would be a return to 1947 UN borders - a victory for both
sides.

Additional:
It is not just Israeli government. August 2014; Most people of
Israel support a disproportional response from government despite
there being only one Israeli Arab killed in a field by thousands of
Hamas rockets, the hundreds of people killed in Gaza by Israeli
missiles was still was not enough.

Quote: There is no
geopolitical issue more bitterly divisive than Israel and Palestine
at the best of times...

My
response: Actually, there is no geopolitical issue more wrong than
Israel and Palestine - all of the time.

A
demonstrably true fact, look at how the media portray the region -
shown above - the maps show Israel and Palestine at roughly the
same size. The fact of the matter is that Israel occupy most of it
- they commit the crime they accuse Hamas of - they wipe Palestine
off the map. There is much more - but there are people so polarised
they cannot even see the disproportionality - it will fall on deaf
ears or, more accurately, on closed eyes.

I would
link to terrible pictures of Gaza suffering with dismembered bodies
and adults or babies with limbs blown off - but this post would be
deleted.

Look at
the disproportionate response to Israel deaths - Palestine is
fighting for survival - Israel is fighting for
expansion.

#

This is
the sort of blinkered posts I get.

interested wrote: I give up Skilful[dotcom] I suppose I can't
expect mere facts to sway your opinion! Just carry on
repeating the propaganda....you might start believing it
eventually.

It is you who is repeating the Zionist propaganda - whose land was
it before we helped steal it for Zionists?

You ignore the overriding fact - that the Palestinians are the
victims - their land was stolen from them - we took part in that
crime.

You cannot beat this overriding fact - objectively it is paramount
and beats all others into insignificance.

You steal somebodies property - who does it truthfully belong to -
you or them?

tinculin
wrote: Individual Palestinians do not have national
borders - a fact you can’t deny.

Is it just me that thinks he's living in a world of
self-retards?

That intelligent 'people' really think Palestine is like
early America hundreds of year ago?

That they can kill and throw out the native people - using
the feeble excuse it wasn't a nation
state.

...

Only a retard would
*believe* that Palestine should be treated like early America -
removing inhabitants.

There clearly is something mentally wrong with somebody that
would treat innocent people so inhumane.

And you honestly do not see this as a mental problem with
them?

###

Spare Bedroom
Subsidy

The
spare bedroom subsidy is another lie, there never was a
subsidy. This is a tax to punish the poor who now find
themselves with an extra bedroom.

Somebody
Posted:

Council's
should have sent out a letter:

Dear
TenantUp to
now we have been pleased to pay for rooms you don't use. We can no
longer afford to do that, so we won't.

So I
posted in response:

-Council's-
Government should have sent out a letter:

Dear
TenantUp to
now we have been pleased to pay for rooms you don't use. This is
because of successive governments incompetence and
maladministration meant we did not build enough homes to place you
better. Unfortunately you will have to pay for our pathetic failure
to act with due care and diligence. This is an injustice to you -
hard luck - no skin off our nose.

BTW: I
have heard supposedly intelligent people say, "Why this a tax?". It
is really quite easy to understand.

It is a
'tax' because people in their position are entitled to 'free' or
subsidised housing.

Because
of bad governement (see above), they are forced to pay an extra
compulsory contribution. An extra tax because of government
ineptitude.

###

Political
or Police Mistakes

This
post is about when politicians or police say they have made a
'mistake'.

When
you do something in error - that is called a 'mistake'.

When
you do something wrong intentionally - that is not a 'mistake' - it
is deliberate wrong-doing.

A bank
robber will say he made a mistake when caught - but it was
deliberate wrong-doing.

Calling
it an 'error of judgement' also means you did not know it was
wrong.

Your
wife picking a pink hat with a green dress (thinking she will look
like a rose) may be an 'error of judgement'.

You
picking an expensive car thinking you can afford it may be an
'error of judgement'.

What
politicians and police do when caught - is deliberate
wrong-doing.

As such
they should be put on trial for what they did - if the crime
deserved it.

###

"Lessons
will be learnt" = "Something we knew already" - more BS and
cover-up.

###

Privatisation, Council Houses and
Quangos

Government
should not have sold these council houses - they were public
property - it was a madness decision. To buy votes. They
dubiously sold a public asset - used to home those on low pay,
so now we have private landlords making a fortune and housing
benefit we cannot afford.

Of
course it was a popular decision for the buying public - they were
getting cheap houses.

Government
should also not have sold our water, gas and electricity - they
were public property - a con selling it to those that already owned
it. It was a madness decision. To screw and defraud the public -
like selling our council housing.

I have
said many times before - Labour should take back privatised
industries. People all realise now it was a con - though most are
not sure how.

It was
selling us what was already ours - a fraud - so that fat-cats can
make profit - not to sell us gas and electric cheap. They have a
fiduciary duty to make as much profit as possible from us - Tories
knew this.

If you
car is stolen or taken using fraud - the police have a duty to
return it to you. They do not pay the person who stole it or has
it.

Also we
should have more council rented housing - which are cheaper - not
what we have now which is dearer privatisation rents. Housing
benefit has risen because of selling these houses.

Council housing is better for the public than
dearer social housing rents (Housing Association)
quangos who want to make more money. Even though supposedly
non-profit organisations they also charge residents extra for
building new houses for others. As the business is expanding they
pay for more than their own house. Mathematics.

BTW:
All housing sold should be affordable - not ripping off
buyers.

The
solution is to stop selling social and council housing and build
council houses on all the brownfield sites we have in
UK.

Socialism
isn't about selling houses - it is about helping people live in
homes if they cannot afford to buy one.

The
public should not subsidise somebody in the private housing market
should they?

So -
how will the country turn against getting back the electricity and
gas companies that was stolen from them?

Quangos
are for cowards in government to evade responsibility and to blame
somebody else after making negative changes....

###

Police
corruption

The
problem is worse than they make out.

Every
police officer who has had the chance to 'blow the whistle' (e.g.
Hillsborough) has chosen to help cover up the wrong-doing of his
colleagues.
Everybody lies - it is not 'a few rotten apples'
as the media often portray at each exposed case - it is every one
is a rotten apple when given a chance to prove they are not.
Obviously there are other cases when officers have 'blown the
whistle' - very rare brave exceptions - they are
'heroes'.

We
should all respect the police without doubt - but not when these
individuals act wrongly e.g. pervert justice or beat up peaceful
protestors.

###

Financial
corruption

The
problem is MUCH worse than they make out.

Every
person who had a chance to 'blow the whistle' (e.g. Libor and many
'mis-selling' frauds) has chosen to help cover up the wrong-doing
of colleagues.
Everybody lies - it is not 'a few rotten apples'
as the media often portray at each exposed case - it is every one
is a rotten apple when given a chance to prove they are not.
Obviously there are other cases when people have 'blown the
whistle' - very rare brave exceptions - they are 'heroes'. Unless
they do it to save their skin.

We all
rely on these people in the financial industry and regulators
without doubt - so they should be jailed when acting illegally to
act as powerful deterent.

###

Afghanistan

Quote:
Lady Eliza Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, delivered a
withering attack on the invasion of Iraq, decried the term "war on
terror", and held out the prospect of talks with
al-Qaida.

Recording
her first BBC Reith lecture on the theme, Securing Freedom, she
made clear she believed the UK and US governments had not
sufficiently understood the resentment that had been building up
among Arab people, which was only compounded by the war against
Iraq.

Before
an audience which included Theresa May, the home secretary, she
also said the 9/11 attacks were "a crime, not an act of war". "So I
never felt it helpful to refer to a war on terror".

Indeed
- 9/11 was a crime - not an act of war. Therefore the invasion of a
country (Afghanistan) was an unlawful response. We used the
(deliberately) failed illegal extradition of Bin Laden as pretext
for war. Blair should be on trail for two massive war crimes -
Afghanistan and Iraq invasions.

###

Illegal
Wars

In the
old days the king used to head his troops to at least share some of
the risk of those that will die for him. We should bring this back
- with the PM heading the troops - to stop him getting us into
stupid or illegal wars.

Our
leaders have got much more cowardly since then - they do not mind
as much you losing your life - as long as they can sit safely back
at home.

Richard
III was the last English monarch to die on the field of battle. Our
corrupt political masters send our young people into battle - they
do not fear for their own personal safety. This is into unlawful
wars using falsified intelligence or a failed illegal extradition
process as a pretext.

38. If
the Tweet does mean that the Claimant abused children, then there
is obviously no dispute that that is one of the most seriously
defamatory allegations which it is possible to make against a
person.

Yes -
obviously.

84. In
my judgment the reasonable reader would understand the words
"innocent face" as being insincere and ironical. There is no
sensible reason for including those words in the Tweet if they are
to be taken as meaning that the Defendant simply wants to know the
answer to a factual question.

Yes -
obviously.

85. The
Defendant does not have any burden of proof in the issue I have to
decide. She does not have to offer an alternative explanation of
why a peer, whose name and career is known to few members of the
public today, might have been trending on 4 November 2012 without
her knowing why he was trending. But where the Defendant is telling
her followers that she does not know why he is trending, and there
is no alternative explanation for why this particular peer was
being named in the tweets which produce the Trend, then it is
reasonable to infer that he is trending because he fits the
description of the unnamed abuser. I find the reader would infer
that. The reader would reasonably infer that the Defendant had
provided the last piece in the jigsaw.

So
then: "She does not have to offer an alternative explanation of why
a peer, whose name and career is known to few members of the public
today, might have been trending on 4 November 2012 without her
knowing why he was trending."

Err..
she obviously did know why and was pretending not to - hence the
*innocent face*.

"..then
it is reasonable to infer that he is trending because he fits the
description of the unnamed abuser."

Why is
it not reasonable to infer that he is trending because he had been
accused - which the judge admits does not imply guilt even if there
was a police inqiry.

Quote:
"If the ordinary sensible man was capable of thinking that wherever
there was a police inquiry there was guilt, it would be almost
impossible to give accurate information about
anything…"

The
Judge fails to even acknowledge anything other than "the Defendant
had provided the last piece in the jigsaw" - why is it not about
her naming him as being accused.

Exactly
how it goes further than tweeting about an accusation - even if she
believed it was true. Explain Mr Justice how it was
more than opinion. Try.

BTW for
idiots: It is NOT repeating an accusation i.e. saying 'McAlpine
raped Mr X' - it is a tweet about him being accused of it by Mr
X.

Imagine
if we all had to keep quiet about hearing serious accusations with
people like Jimmy Savile. Knowingly making false accusations is
different.

His
judgement is unsound and promotes a wall of silence towards
possible vile abuse of children - I hope
unintentionally.

###

Government Wonga Fraud

Our
corrupt government had seen how poor people were extorted by loan
sharks and instead of stopping it they thought, 'That is a
brilliant scam, we should have some of that as tax'. So they
legalised loan-sharking at 5,000% for the poor whilst the rich pay
a few percent.

###

Female Genital Mutilation

Failure
to protect girls from FGM is 'ongoing national scandal',
MPs
say

It is due to all this rubbish with being
positive about multiculturalism (to aid mass
immigration).

You cannot offend - you even have to drop your
values for the sake of others - go backwards and bring religion
into eating of food (Halal).

Jaha Marie Dukureh was a victim of female
genital mutilation.

I asked her, "why has it taken so long for
somebody to be prosecuted for such a vile crime? Is it due to
Multiculturalism and Political Correctness?"

She replied: "Thank you so much for your
question, I think it has taken so long because politicians are
afraid to deal with other people’s culture and a lot of people feel
that the topic is too sensitive to address and they don’t want to
come off as racist."

Just
what the rich Tory ruling class want - the Tory Lite (New Labour)
party are no better.

###

Climate
Sceptic

I am
not a denialist - just a sceptic - with good
reason. So some of you rabid evangelists know where to put your
slurs and false misrepresentations.

Indeed,
climate is always changing - climate could get cooler or hotter -
the 95% certainty by 'experts' is purely a gut feel - not
scientific at all.

There
is no scientific skepticism in their research - it is all about
confirming a belief that the world is warming and man is to blame.
Yes, unbelievably scientists should be sceptics too - until it is
proven beyond any doubt. Scientifically & politically it is
done and dusted, sceptics are now called
denialists.

My
scepticism is because of bad science e.g. closing
weather stations all over the world whilst comparing data with new
ones built elsewhere plus removing unreliable proxy data from
charts only after it diverged from dogma but keeping it in from
before. Also propaganda like with recent (2013/14)
English weather e.g. Dawlish rail always had similar weather
problems with the track - this was presented as a new problem
because of global warming.

They
have closed many weather stations. As to moving of weather stations
example - quote: The Hadley Centre's CET calculation has recently
undergone a major change, involving the replacement of several of
the contributing stations. Their series is now based on Stonyhurst
(Lancs), Pershore (Worcs) and Rothamsted (Herts), all of which are
Campbell Automatic Weather Stations. The Philip
Eden series continues to emulate Manley's original work which
calculates the mean between the Oxford district and the Lancashire
Plain, and no changes have been introduced to this series in recent
months. You can draw your own conclusions as to the
efficacy of the Hadley Centre's change. http://www.climate-uk.com/CETcheck.htm

LATEST
2013: Met Office admit a warming pause when it
should be rising faster: "The start of the current pause is
difficult to determine precisely. Although 1998 is often quoted as
the start of the current pause...It is only really since 2000 that
the rise in global surface temperatures has paused."

N.B.
Spoiler alert - they blame ocean uptake - like there was no ocean
uptake before - so what stopped it?

Recent
propaganda is implying man-made global warming increased rainfall -
causing recent flooding problems in England. A big thing was made
of January 2014 being wettest ever for England - though January
1948 was so close it can to be thought of as to be the same (156.9
compared to 158.2). I would say that the great storms of February
1287 (when whole areas of coastline were redrawn) and December 1703
(one of the most severe ever recorded) were a lot worse - but your
'experts' will likely disagree, as man-made warming cannot be
blamed. Check yourself.

The
important thing is trend. Wettest *recorded* February is 1923,
March 1947, April 2012, May 1967, June 2012, July 2009, August
2012, September 1918, October 2000, November 1929 and December
1914. One off bad months prove nothing - even them pretending it
was not wetter before records.

They
say it is about CO2 - if higher countries cut to UK usage per
capita and lower countries did not increase theirs then the
man-made CO2 problem will be resolved - if it ever existed.

I could
not - perhaps you can do better - please look yourself. It is the
only thing which will convince some close-minded people - and then
not always.

The
first chart is from the Met Office. It is very important to note
they have invented a new trendline methodology - the
"Smoothed Kernel Filter" - only 12 links on
google. Why is that? Why are the Met Office not using standard
methods like a
"10 year moving average"? Why are they letting
people think winters are getting wetter in England when that is not
true? English winters have actually got drier since
1910.

If ALL
other countries copied our UK usage per capita then the man-made
CO2 problem will be resolved - if it ever existed.

This is
purely being used as an excuse to tax us more - so-called green tax
- when we in UK are good compared to bad guys like America - it is
another scam.

Quote:
The first trouble experienced with the line, after opening in May
1846, was in December 1852 at Breeches Rock between Teignmouth and
Dawlish. Héavy rain caused a spring to, break out from a soft vein,
resulting in the collapse of the cliff onto the railway. After a
similar occurrence in February 1853, the gradient of the cliff face
was eased and drainage work carried out, but it was not enough
toprevent a slightfall in October of the saine year. This
illustra-tion shows the result of the first attack on the line from
the other side. Easter~y gales during the first fortnight of
February 1855 had washed away the beach near Teignmouth, exposing
the marl on which the railway and sea wall were built. Heavy seas
scoured the marl and despite remedial work 30yd of wall collapsed
on the 16th. Severe frosts and turbulent seas prevented
reconstruction, and by the time work could begin 50yd of the
embankment had been washed away..

The
other argument - that winter is also getting wetter - is another
lie. Even the Met Office graphs do not show this. Why then are they
letting people think winters are getting wetter when that is not
true?. Please - trust yourself - see what you believe
then.

Regarding
the recent flooding - here is an analogy for you:

Our
government are in charge of the Titanic and they have forewarning
it is going to sink - so what do they do?

They
build more decks on it so more people will drown (their excuse
being that they have decks there already anyway).

That is
the consequence for our continued building on flood plains and in
areas prone to flooding (including current villages and
towns).

We have
idiots for our leaders and are doomed to stay that way.

###

Why
did our scientists join IPCC for global warming in 1988 - when the
temperature had been coming down since the war? Maybe they had a
crystal ball and could tell the futures. No silly - perhaps they
thought that the UK was immune and indeed could reverse global
warming. That must be it ;)

If
UK temperature came down in the UK for the next 42 years the public
and scientists would be 100% more sceptical - wouldn't
they?

Please
check this yourself - the Central England Temperatures. Taking the
data they had since the end of war up to 1987, did our British
scientists really believe we could reverse global warming when they
went into the IPCC?

Does
anybody know how many millions of pounds funding have they received
since then? Was future funding the primary influence
then?

Quote:
One of the most remarkable aspects of the paleoclimate record is
the strong correspondence between temperature and the concentration
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere observed during the glacial
cycles of the past several hundred thousand years. When the carbon
dioxide concentration goes up, temperature goes up. When the carbon
dioxide concentration goes down, temperature goes down.

Except
they are clearly telling fibs - because they say
"Temperature change (blue) and carbon dioxide change
(red)" - the temperatues is clearly leading the CO2 - not
the other way around i.e. When the temperature
goes down, carbon dioxide concentration goes
down.

Somebody
wrote to me about that saying, "it did amplify the warming" - but
with high CO2 the temperature was coming down - not going
up.

At the
bottom of this page - look in zoomed in detail at the last 100,000
years:

At the
beginning of this period - you can clearly see that temperature
(blue) is bringing down CO2 (red).

Government
would tax the air that you breath if they could get away with it -
a 'green tax' (for our own good) is one way of doing it.

The working
class are taxed disproportionately - green tax like VAT is
regressive - they are left with even less of their income than the
rich.

.

.

Paedophiles in Position of
Power - (allegedly)

& cover up allegation. The
big lie of the inquiry (there will be others) will be that the
cover up was historic but in truth it continues until the present
day. In actual truth at least one ex-MP it is alleged to have had
sex with a boy and has not been questioned by the police. Simon
Danczuk MP was told not to “out” Parliamentarians as suspect
paedophiles, as it could kill him.

Warning - video
has very graphic descriptions

'Cabinet
Minister in seized child porn' by James Fielding

Sunday
Express - 23 February 2014

A
former Cabinet minister was featured in a video seized by
customsofficers
during a child porn raid more than 30 years ago.

The MP
appeared on amateur footage shot in Amsterdam, the
SundayExpress
has been told. The video, discovered on a coach
travellingfrom
the Continent, was seized at Dover in 1982, following
intelligencethat
the politician was involved. A number of child porn films
wereretrieved,
including a video showcase of 34 British boys who had
beensmuggled
into the Netherlands from care homes in Britain. Anothervideo,
with the title Amsterdam Tramway Museum, had a few minutes
oftram
footage before flickering into hardcore images of children
beingabused.

A
customs source would not say whether the ex-MP took part in any
abuseon
camera but added: "This person, a member of the Cabinet,
wasinvolved
and that's why officers had to seize the video.
Departmentheads
later took over and that was the last seen of the
material."An HMRC
spokesman said: "We can find no trace of these videos so
arenot in
a position to confirm in any way if a prominent MP wasinvolved."

There
is a cover-up - government will like you to think that there is no
depravity in power. If bigCyril
Smith got covered up then how many others?

The Paedophile MP: How
Cyril Smith Got Away with It

How MP
Cyril Smith got away with child abuse

During
his lifetime Cyril Smith was one of the UK's best-known
politicians. But a new investigation shows that security services
held on to a file with evidence of the Liberal MP's child
abuse.

Cyril
Smith, the Rochdale MP who died in 2010, was a larger than life
figure.

His
jocular personality and his regular appearances on chat shows made
him one of the best-known politicians in the country.

But an
investigation by Channel 4's Dispatches programme shows that UK
security services held on to evidence of the Liberal MP's child
abuse.

In the
late 1960s Lancashire police carried out several investigations
into Smith's behaviour, compiling an 80-page file. The suggestion
is that police were ready to prosecute.

However,
veiled threats from local liberals meant the case was dropped and
the file locked away in a safe at Special Branch, which has
responsibility for national security. Labour MP Jack McCann,
Smith's predecessor as MP for Rochdale, also spoke to the DPP on
Smith's behalf.

By
1977, the Liberal party was the junior party in a pact with the
country's ruling Labour party. MI5 now also took an interest in
Smith's background.

Former
Special Branch detective Tony Robinson told Dispatches he was
contacted by MI5, who requested he send them the file by special
courier. By now Lancashire police, Special Branch and MI5 knew
about the allegations.

Lord
Steel, who as David Steel led the Liberal party between 1976 and
1988, says he asked Smith about the allegations of child abuse and
accepted his denial of wrongdoing.

In
Rochdale, Smith set up a hostel, Cambridge House, supposedly to
help boys in need.

Dispatches
spoke to one man, Kevin Griffiths, a former resident at the hostel,
who first told the police about the Rochdale MP's
behaviour.

Mr
Griffiths recalls how, on one occasion, he stood naked in front of
Smith "and he ran his hands all up and down my thighs, inside my
legs, and touched my private parts".

Smith
went on to help set up another institution in Rochdale, Knowl View
School, for which he held a set of keys. It was there that Chris
Marshall, then eight years old, became Smith's youngest known
victim.

And the
Metropolitan police have confirmed to Dispatches that during the
1980s Smith was a visitor to the Elm guest house in south west
London, where a paedophile ring was
reported to have been active.

To
declare an interest; I have been seriously ill - being forced to
retire after a couple of operations went wrong at Papworth in 1997.
Details are on my skilled.org (to be uploaded).
Since then my health has got a lot worse - I had an aneurysm
rupture in 2010. I survived only because of being on the MRI
scanner at hospital at the time. There were complications, which
meant that I was transferred from Addenbrookes ICU to Papworth ICU
and back to Addenbrookes ICU again. I had to be induced into a
coma, given a tracheostmy and put on kidney dialysis. It left me
with even more health problems as my lungs were damaged and it
split my artery from chest to stomach so I now have another
aneurysm which my surgeon says is unsafe to operate on.

To make
a general comment; with all the propaganda from the media and
people like IDS and Lord Freud, I wonder if those who say 'people
on benefits are scroungers' think the same when they cannot get
another job after being made redundant at 50 plus (with untold
thousands of younger and fitter workers being imported) - or become
too sick to work themselves. Somehow I think not - these people
likely then realise just how stupid they have been.

ATOS -
DWP lackies?

ATOS
almost killed me. I had a 'medical' due with ATOS in 2009 but they
contacted my GP and admitted my health was too bad and I need not
come.

I filled in the form last year (2013) and informed them my
condition had greatly worsened as explained above after the
ruptured aneurysm in 2010.

I also informed them about the current large aneurysm - which was
growing every year and how it may be very injurious for me to
attend with the stress (knowing how their 'medicals' work). I also
advised them that my surgeon had told me it is very important that
my blood pressure is well controlled below 140/80. I have high
blood pressure anyway without this added worry (only mildly
controlled with medication). On the form I wrote they should
contact the GP again (or surgeon). Needless to say they sent a
letter telling me I had to attend - to which I rang to see if it
was not a 'mistake'.

I was told I had to go. I was holding my chest in pain through 50
minutes of interview until the nurse finally (presumably thinking
holding chest was a ploy) took my blood pressure. She promptly
cancelled the 'medical' as the systolic BP was high at 165. All
documented and official ATOS audio is available.

News
February 2014 is that ATOS are to be dumped - great. However, the
new lackies will still be acting for the DWP. We need proper
medicals taking a persons illness into account (not ignored). How
*everybody* will want to be treated if it was THEMSELVES or their
children who was seriously ill.

Here is
somebody secret filming whilst working for
ATOS:

It
seems the new bosses taking over from ATOS (MAXIMUS) are just as
bad.

One
quote from a new employee in America: "It seems like not one person
knows what is going on. Things change on a daily basis and they
expect you to make these insane quotas, they are not about their
employees they are about the numbers. The turnover is the worst I
have ever seen. Forget going to HR with a problem either because
they will not help you. My manager is probably the worst, I don't
think anything that gets said is ever the truth. They will write
you up for nothing. This place is a joke, I can't wait to get out
of here."

Advice
to Management: "Just give up, your employees are not happy,
your managers lie, the team leads are horrible to other employees
and don't have a clue as to what is going on. I'm pretty sure the
federal government could find a way better place to do business
with."

Why are
these liars not brought to account - we have been poisoning our
children because of their lies.

They
are criminals causing grievous bodily harm and death - why are the
cowardly government not making them culpable?

Presumably
because they do not want to be made culpable when they have been
found out to have been lying to us..

###

Is
this Fraud?

British
Gas

We
bought a new boiler and it broke down after the guarantee ran
out. BG said boilers are not covered by the Sale of Goods
Act (an untruth) but told us that we could pay for a pricey
maintance contract though or pay for the repair. Which we were
forced to do. It was either that or pay thousands for a new boiler.
Clearly we are not the only ones made to pay with BG - or is it
just boilers - or is BG alone in this bad practice. There are
likely millions of us.

The
Sale of Goods Act states: "For the purposes of this Act, goods are
of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable
person would regard as satisfactory, taking account of any
description of the goods, the price (if relevant) and all the other
relevant circumstances". The boiler broke down again 9 months after
the repair, possibly with a different bit. If so we have to pay
again. For ignorant employees; the goods as a whole have to be 'fit
for purpose', not just parts of it. If you paid thousands for
something is it of satisfactory quality if it broke down every 9
months with a different bit?

Ofcom
allow ISP's to sell slow speed broadband at high speed prices. They
also allow ISP's to falsely sell unlimited broadband which is in
fact limited. This allowed our ISP (Supanet) to cut the 'fair
usage' to 15 Gigabyte without telling us and then try to defraud us
i.e. we had to either to upgrade our supposed 'unlimited' service
to a fixed limit at extra cost or pay a charge for our 'overuse'.
At least Ofcom admitted that our ISP acted wrongly - we won our
case against the corrupt ISP. Unfortunately though Ofcom would not
check who else our ISP did this to. So - do not think this is an
isolated 'mistake'. They, like all other regulators, are merely PR
for their industry - nothing more than damage
limitation.

Regulators
all protect greedy corrupt bosses with the smallest action i.e.
individual compensation when they can get away with it - and
massive fines paid by customers and investors at worst. They may
think they do it to protect the markets - but it has the opposite
effect - hence the recent bank crash.

YOU PAY THEIR FINES

GSK fined $3bn (£1.9bn)
July 2012

The pharmaceutical group GlaxoSmithKline has been fined $3bn
(£1.9bn) after admitting bribing doctors and encouraging the
prescription of unsuitable antidepressants to children. Glaxo is
also expected to admit failing to report safety problems with the
diabetes drug Avandia in a district court in Boston on
Thursday.

Despite the large fine, $3bn is far less than the profits made from
the drugs. Avandia has made $10.4bn in sales, Paxil took $11.6bn,
and Wellbutrin sales were $5.9bn during the years covered by the
settlement, according to IMS Health, a data group that consults for
drug makers.

GlaxoSmithKline has been found guilty of bribery by a Chinese court
and has agreed to pay a fine of 3bn yuan (£297m) to the government
in Beijing.

At the same time, the former head of its China division, Mark
Reilly, and other GSK executives are facing two- to four-year jail
terms, according to the state news agency, Xinhua. Reilly was
accused of running a "massive bribery network".

The bribery case involved allegations that GSK sales executives
paid up to 3bn yuan to doctors to encourage them to use its
drugs.

The Chinese courts can prosecute individuals for lesser
crime - yet our courts cannot - was this just for
PR?

See end
of page for Defamation

INTJ
personality - my personality test
for those interested

It’s lonely at the top, and being one of the
rarest and most strategically capable personality types, INTJs know
this all too well. INTJs form just two percent of the population,
and women of this personality type are especially rare, forming
just 0.8% of the population – it is often a challenge for them to
find like-minded individuals who are able to keep up with their
relentless intellectualism and chess-like maneuvering. INTJs are
imaginative yet decisive, ambitious yet private, amazingly curious,
but only if their interest is piqued.

Smart and
unconventionalINTJ_1With a natural thirst for knowledge that
shows itself early in life, INTJs are often given the title of
“bookworm” as children. While this may be intended as an insult by
their peers, they more than likely identify with it and are even
proud of it, greatly enjoying their broad and deep body of
knowledge. INTJs enjoy sharing what they know as well, confident in
their mastery of their chosen subjects, but owing to their
Intuitive (N) and Judging (J) traits, they prefer to design and
execute a brilliant plan within their field rather than share
opinions on “uninteresting” distractions like gossip.

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are
entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be
ignorant." ~ Harlan Ellison

A paradox to most observers, INTJs are able to
live by glaring contradictions that nonetheless make perfect sense
– from a rational perspective. For example, INTJs are
simultaneously the most starry-eyed idealists and the bitterest of
cynics, a seemingly impossible conflict. But this is because INTJ
types tend to believe that with effort, intelligence and
consideration, nothing is impossible, while at the same time they
believe that people are too lazy, short-sighted or self-serving to
actually achieve those fantastic results. Yet that cynical view of
reality is unlikely to stop an interested INTJ from achieving a
result they believe to be relevant.

Independence personified
INTJs radiate self-confidence and an aura of mystery, and their
insightful observations, original ideas and formidable logic enable
them to push change through with sheer willpower and force of
personality. At times it will seem that INTJs are bent on
deconstructing and rebuilding every idea and system they come into
contact with, employing a sense of perfectionism and even morality
to this work. Anyone who doesn’t have the talent to keep up with
INTJs’ processes, or worse yet, doesn’t see the point of them, is
likely to immediately and permanently lose their
respect.

Rules, limitations and traditions are anathema
to the INTJ personality type – everything should be open to
questioning and reevaluation, and if they see a way, INTJs will
often act unilaterally to enact their technically superior,
sometimes insensitive, and almost always unorthodox methods and
ideas.

This isn’t to be misunderstood as impulsiveness
– INTJs will strive to remain rational no matter how attractive the
end goal may be, and every idea, whether generated internally or
soaked in from the outside world, must pass the ruthless and
ever-present “Is this going to work?” filter. This mechanism is
applied at all times, to all things and all people, and this is
often where INTJ personality types run into trouble.

...yet not everything can be
analyzed

INTJs are brilliant and confident in bodies of
knowledge they have taken the time to understand, but unfortunately
the social contract is unlikely to be one of those subjects. White
lies and small talk are hard enough as it is for a type that craves
truth and depth, but INTJs will go so far as to see many social
conventions as downright stupid. Ironically, it is often best for
them to remain where they are comfortable – out of the spotlight –
where the natural confidence prevalent in INTJs as they work with
the familiar can serve as its own beacon, attracting people,
romantically or otherwise, of similar temperament and
interests.

INTJs are defined by their tendency to move
through life as though it were a giant chess board, pieces
constantly shifting with consideration and intelligence, always
assessing new tactics, strategies and contingency plans, constantly
outmaneuvering their peers in order to maintain control of a
situation while maximizing their freedom to move about. This isn’t
meant to suggest that INTJs act without conscience, but to many
Feeling (F) types, INTJs’ distaste for acting on emotion can make
it seem that way, and it explains why many fictional villains (and
misunderstood heroes) are modeled on this personality
type.

INTJ strengths and
weaknesses

INTJ Strengths
High self-confidence. INTJ personalities rarely doubt
themselves or care much about their perceived social roles,
expectations, etc. Consequently, they are not afraid to voice their
own opinions. This exudes confidence and reinforces the INTJ’s
self-esteem even further.
Quick and versatile mind. INTJs are very good at improving
their knowledge of (often diverse) topics and fields that interest
them. People with this personality type take pleasure in tackling
intellectual challenges, and their natural curiosity pushes them
forward as well.
Jacks-of-all-trades. The most important strength of any INTJ
is their mind. Other personality types pride themselves on being
artistic, intuitive, convincing, athletic, etc. In contrast, INTJs
excel at being able to analyze anything that life throws at them,
uncovering the underlying methodology and then applying it in
practice. Consequently, INTJ personalities are usually able to
become what they want to become—be it an IT architect or a
high-flying politician.
Independent and decisive. People with the INTJ personality
type are ruthless when it comes to analyzing the usefulness of
methods or ideas. They could not care less if that idea is popular
or supported by an authority figure. If the INTJ believes that it
does not make sense, only overwhelming rational arguments will
convince them otherwise. This strength makes them efficient and
impartial decision-makers, often at a very young age. INTJs also
tend to be quite resistant to conflicts, usually remaining rational
and calm in an emotionally charged situation.
Hard-working and determined. INTJ personalities can be very
patient and dedicated if something excites or intrigues them. They
will work hard to achieve their goals, often ignoring everything
else. That being said, INTJs may also appear lazy in situations
that do not require them to flex their mental muscles. For
instance, they may take risks and not study that hard at school,
knowing that in all likelihood, they will be able to tackle the
tests anyway.
Imaginative and strategic. INTJs are very good strategic
thinkers, often using this strength to devise multiple contingency
plans in both professional and personal situations. They like to
plan ahead and be prepared, imagining all the potential scenarios
and consequences.
Honest and direct. People with this personality type hate
playing social games and putting comfort or social expectations
above honesty and facts. INTJs tend to see these activities as
pointless and irrational, preferring inconvenient truth over a
comforting lie.
Open-minded. INTJ personalities do not mind being proven
wrong and enjoy being exposed to something they were not familiar
with. They will embrace a competing theory if it makes more sense,
regardless of the existing traditions or expectations. Not
surprisingly, INTJs also tend to be fairly liberal in a social
sense, believing that many social norms are outdated and
unnecessarily restrictive.

INTJ Weaknesses
Arrogant. There is a fine line between confidence and
arrogance. Some less mature INTJs may overestimate the importance
of their knowledge or analytical skills, seeing most other people
as irrational or intellectually inferior, often making their
opinion known.
Perfectionists. INTJ personalities loathe inefficiency and
imperfection, trying very hard to iron out all the flaws and
analyze all possibilities. If left unchecked, this trait can easily
become a weakness, slowing down their work quite significantly and
frustrating people around the INTJ.
Likely to over-analyze everything. INTJs tend to believe that
everything can be analyzed, even things that are not necessarily
rational, e.g., human relationships. They may seek logical
explanations and solutions in every situation, refusing to rely on
improvisation or their own emotions.
Judgmental. INTJs reach their conclusions very quickly and
stick to them. Even though people with this personality type tend
to be open-minded, they have little patience for things they
consider illogical, e.g., decisions based on feelings, irrational
stubbornness, emotional outbursts, etc. An INTJ is likely to
believe that someone who behaves in this way is either very
immature or irrational; consequently, they will have little respect
for them.
May be insensitive. INTJ personalities often pride themselves
on being brutally honest and logical. However, while their
statements may be rational and completely correct, they may not
take into account another person’s emotional state, background,
individual circumstances, etc. Consequently, the INTJ’s directness
and honesty may easily hurt other people, thus becoming a major
weakness in social situations.
Often clueless when it comes to romantic relationships. Many
INTJs are likely to have difficulties dealing with anything that
does not require logical reasoning, and this weakness is especially
visible in interpersonal relationships. They may overanalyze
everything, get frustrated trying to understand how the other
person thinks, try to use a nearly scientific approach to dating,
or just give up altogether.
Loathe highly structured environments. INTJ personalities do
not respect rules or regulations just because they are there; they
need to be confident that those restrictions make sense.
Consequently, INTJs strongly dislike environments that are built on
blind obedience, traditions, or respect for authority. They are
likely to challenge the status quo and clash with people who prefer
stability and safety.

INTJ personality and
emotions
The INTJ personality type is perhaps the most enigmatic and
controversial of all. Idealistic visionaries, unemotional robots,
brilliant strategists, socially awkward geeks, fearsome debaters –
these are just a few examples of the numerous labels that INTJs
seem to be able to get.
There is usually little middle ground with strong expressed INTJ
personalities – other types either find their quirkiness mysterious
and attractive, or feel uncomfortable and get offended. The INTJs
themselves are either proud of their traits and wear them like a
badge, or see themselves as eccentrics and do their best to mimic
the behavior of other people, trying to blend in. These attitudes
soften as people grow and develop, but they tend to be very
black-and-white at a younger age.

The Achilles' heel
One of the most significant sticking points is the INTJs’ handling
of emotions. Most INTJ personalities pride themselves in remaining
rational and logical at all times, seeing most emotional displays
as a sign of weakness and irrationality. As people with this
personality type also tend to be very honest and straightforward,
it is no surprise that they are often seen as insensitive. Some
INTJs may go even further, claiming that they have no feelings or
emotions at all, and that anyone who does is weak and
irrational.

Ironically, INTJs can be just as emotional, if
not more so, than any other personality type. Everything depends on
how we define and handle emotions – for instance, there is a world
of difference between breaking down in public and simply being
thoughtful or amused. For most INTJs, public displays of emotion
are outside of their comfort zone and consequently they will do
their best to restrain themselves. However, this does not mean that
INTJs have no feelings – rather, they tend to be good at channeling
their emotions and using logic to keep them in check.

Why all the shields?
One of the reasons behind the cold exterior is that people with the
INTJ personality type tend to be very proud of their knowledge and
abilities – revealing emotions or even acknowledging that they
exist may be a frightening prospect, especially if the INTJ in
question is younger and secretly not as confident as they would
like to be. In such cases, the INTJ will shield themselves with
coldness and rational arguments, allowing their Thinking trait to
act like a protective big brother to the weaker, less developed
Feeling trait.

Second, logic and rationality play a dominant
role in the INTJ decision-making process – feelings usually only
come into play when their Thinking trait cannot come up with a
rational solution to a difficult problem. To give an example, if an
INTJ is upset, they will not need to tell everyone around them that
they are upset – on the contrary, they will focus on identifying
why they are upset and then coming up with a logical solution to
their problems. Alternatively, they will channel that energy into
something productive.

Emotions will always influence the decisions
that the INTJ is making, at least to some extent – it is impossible
to separate the two, even though most people with the INTJ
personality type try hard to make decisions and solve problems
without involving their feelings.

How we process is also how we feel, and how we
feel is also how we process – this applies to INTJs as well.
However, people with this personality type find it quite easy to
deal with those emotions internally, without exposing them to the
outside world, and this is why they may radiate that aura of logic
and detachment.

So, to summarize – INTJ personalities can be
very sensitive and have very deep feelings. Even though these
emotions will be shielded from the public view by their Thinking
trait and will (usually) not be the deciding factor in the INTJ
decision-making process, this does not mean that INTJs should be
seen as, or should aspire to be, cold-blooded and insensitive
geniuses living by the mantra that emotions are for the weak. This
is not the case and is not going to happen.

INTJ relationships
INTJ personalities are likely to have significant difficulties when
it comes to relationships. INTJs spend a large part of their lives
in their heads; consequently, what they see and understand
intuitively can be much more advanced than a “bland” reality. As a
result, someone with the INTJ personality may find it challenging
to merge that fantasy and those high requirements with reality.
Unfortunately, their superior logic and imagination may actually
hinder the INTJ when they start looking for a partner.

A plan for everything
People with this personality type are likely to apply a rational
approach to dating and relationships as well. An INTJ is likely to
have a “checklist” in their mind long before they actually start
thinking about a relationship. It is also likely that “he/she must
be rational” will be at the top of their list of criteria—and this
is exactly what usually holds the INTJ back, especially if they are
male.

There are certain rules (e.g., do not appear too
interested) and types of behavior (e.g., a girl should not start
the conversation) that a person interested in finding a dating
partner is expected to follow, and unfortunately for INTJs, the
majority of people will follow those rules. Even those potential
partners who an INTJ would normally see as rational will probably
yield to societal expectations. Consequently, INTJs are likely to
get quite disappointed after the first few attempts at dating and
may even start thinking that everybody else is either irrational or
intellectually inferior.

INTJs are bewilderingly deep and intelligent
people, bringing a lot of stability and insight into their romantic
relationships, but that extraordinary intelligence is also their
main enemy in this area.

Paradoxically, someone with the INTJ personality
is most likely to attract a romantic partner when they are not
actually looking for one. As most INTJs have difficulties with
dating and relationships, their self-confidence takes a major hit
in those situations, and the INTJ then overcompensates by showing
off their intelligence, which makes them even more unattractive.
Only when the INTJ returns to his or her usual self does their
self-confidence start glowing again, which makes it much easier for
them to attract a partner.

What am I supposed to say
now?..
INTJs are uncomfortable expressing their feelings or trying to
understand the emotions of other people. They also have a tendency
to always trust their knowledge and understanding. Not
surprisingly, INTJs can sometimes inadvertently hurt other people,
especially during the dating phase and even later in the
relationship. The mind of the INTJ personality is geared toward
looking at conflict situations as logical puzzles worthy of
analysis, which does not always help when their relationship
partner does not share the same notion of fun.

That said, if both partners manage to survive
the rocky start during the dating phase, it is very likely that the
relationship will be very deep and strong and the INTJ will do
everything they can to ensure it stays that way, as long as their
significant other reciprocates. INTJs are likely to be very
imaginative and enthusiastic partners - however, it is important
that the INTJ does not fall into a habit of spending more time
theorizing about intimacy than communicating with their
partner.

What if it does not work
out?
People with the INTJ personality type may terminate the
relationship if they are confident that it is at risk of breaking
down, and they will not look back. INTJs’ approach to dating is
quite similar: they will not keep trying if their mind is telling
them that the likelihood of a strong relationship is very low.
However, the calm exterior can be deceiving; it is more than likely
that the INTJ will feel very hurt inside and spend extensive
amounts of time figuring out what went wrong, especially if they
had devoted a lot of time to dating or making the relationship
work.

Preferred partners: ENFP and ENTP types, as
their Extraversion (E) and Prospecting (P) traits counterbalance
INTJs’ Introversion (I) and Judging (J) traits. INFJs are also a
very strong match as the intuitive connection between INTJ and INFJ
is likely to be instantaneous.

INTJ friends
It is not easy to become an INTJ’s friend. People with this
personality type value rationality and intelligence more than
anything else and tend to automatically assume that most of the
individuals they meet are likely to be less intelligent than they
are. Most would probably call it arrogance; INTJs would rationalize
this as a natural filtering mechanism and argue that most people
simply bore them. Consequently, INTJs tend to have very few good
friends, but they also do not really see the need to have a big
social circle.

INTJ personalities are very independent and
self-sufficient. They see their friends more as intellectual soul
mates than as sources of social validation and
assurance.

INTJs will happily come up with new ways to
improve and deepen the relationship, but they will not be dependent
on their friends emotionally. Furthermore, it is quite unlikely
that the INTJ will enjoy physical manifestations of feelings (hugs,
touches, etc.), even with close friends.

No crying on my shoulder!
INTJ friends will also find that people with this personality type
are very difficult to “read.” Not only are INTJs comparatively
unemotional, they are also likely to try to suppress emotions that
get through their mental filters.

Emotions are definitely the INTJ’s Achilles’
heel, so they do their best to not let them through, in fear of
breaching that shield of logic and rationality. And vice versa,
INTJs may be quite insensitive when it comes to their friends’
feelings. In all likelihood, the INTJ would honestly have no clue
how to react to something on the emotional level.

Not for the faint hearted
INTJs have no difficulties relaxing and enjoying themselves among
close friends. Their renowned sarcasm and dark humor make INTJ
personalities great storytellers, as long as the audience can
understand (and withstand) their jokes. This is one of the reasons
why INTJs are usually very fond of Analysts (NT) or Diplomats (NF)
– they can read between the lines and follow the INTJ’s train of
thought. In contrast, Observant (S) types are likely to find this
personality type quite frustrating.

People with the INTJ personality type tend to be
truly gifted and bright individuals, seeking personal growth and
development, and encouraging their friends to follow the same path.
If the INTJ is able to connect to another person at this level,
their friendship will likely be strong and long-lasting. INTJs are
generally very “low maintenance” friends, who do not require much
attention or constant contact. They understand the value of privacy
and independence and will actually push their friends to become
more independent as well.

INTJ parents
INTJ personality traits are not usually considered ideal as far as
parenting is concerned. INTJs tend to be very rational,
perfectionistic, and relatively insensitive individuals, which goes
against the stereotypical image of warm, caring, traditional
parents.

However, it could be said that this is simply a
reflection of the fact that society is dominated by more sensitive
and traditional personality types. In contrast, INTJ parents are
more likely to focus on making sure that their children grow up to
be able to make independent and rational decisions.

Not surprisingly, people with the INTJ
personality type will probably have difficulties supporting their
children emotionally. INTJs are used to suppressing their own
emotions and will struggle if their child is very sensitive. There
are many other personality types that have difficulties in this
area, but INTJ personalities are likely to find this especially
difficult.

INTJs will be excellent advisors when it comes
to planning, rational advice, help with studies, etc., but they are
unlikely to know how to react when their child asks for their help
with a matter that is emotional in nature.

That being said, most INTJ parents will be able
to ensure that their children are very well prepared to deal with
the challenges that life throws their way. They will likely be
demanding yet liberal and open-minded parents, encouraging their
children to develop and use their own mind instead of trying to
protect them from the world as long as possible.

INTJ careers
INTJ personalities are known for their ability to digest difficult
and complex theories and principles relevant to their careers and
then convert them into clear and actionable ideas. INTJs are
excellent strategists, possessing intuition and confidence that
allow them to devise and implement challenging, long-term plans
without many problems. These skills can be tremendously valuable in
the right career path.

People with this personality type are great at
jobs that involve planning, strategy, and application of complex
theoretical principles. For instance, you could find many INTJs
among project managers, system engineers, or marketing strategists.
These are often their best career choices.

Typical INTJ careers also tend to put a lot of
importance on independent thinking. INTJs love difficult challenges
and strongly detest routine, doing whatever they can to avoid or
automate mind-numbing tasks.

It is difficult to imagine an INTJ willingly
choosing a strictly administrative or teamwork-focused role. They
excel as “lone wolves” and the best INTJ careers revolve around
this trait, giving INTJs enough breathing space to use their
creativeness and dedication without being constantly questioned by
other team members.

Thou shalt not cheat
People with this personality type put effectiveness and competence
above everything else. Consequently, the best INTJ careers reward
personal initiative and determination. INTJs believe that everyone
should do their best to complete the task to the highest possible
standard and loathe individuals who use social activities and
networking rather than merit to get ahead on the career
ladder.

There really is no easier way to lose the
respect of an INTJ than to show that you believe social skills and
relationships are more important than professional competence.
INTJs have very high standards, especially when it comes to their
own work, and are likely to put in an extraordinary amount of
effort to get the job done. Consequently, typical INTJ careers
reward inventiveness, dedication, and
insightfulness.

Where is my drawing
board?
INTJs tend to have excellent analytical and creative skills. They
are highly unlikely to choose or enjoy customer-facing or
teamwork-oriented careers; these are definitely not the best
choices for INTJs. As already mentioned, INTJs are brilliant
strategists and planners, but they do best alone or in small teams.
People with this personality type will gladly accept someone else’s
authority and leadership, as long as they see that individual as
competent.

These traits make INTJs excellent engineers,
military strategists, programmers, system analysts, lawyers, or
freelance consultants. These are typical INTJ career paths, and
their performance in these areas is often very
impressive.

INTJ in the workplace
Most of us will spend a huge percentage of our life at work. This
is why we believe that discussing how different personality types
behave in the workplace is important. What drives them or makes
them miserable? How can you create a mutually beneficial and
productive relationship with a specific personality type? How
should you handle conflicts with them?

Let’s talk about the INTJ personality type in
this case. What should you know about an INTJ colleague? An INTJ
manager? Or maybe an INTJ subordinate? We are going to tackle these
questions one by one.

INTJ Colleagues
Fiercely independent at work, people with the INTJ
personality type are “lone wolves”
Love challenges, especially if they get complete
responsibility (no need to share the glory)
Prefer working alone, mostly because they believe that others
are only going to slow them down
Enjoy brainstorming in the workplace, as long as the
discussion does not descend into arguments over details
Have perfectionist tendencies and very rarely give up
Cannot stand inefficiency or colleagues who refuse to use
more efficient methods
Loathe manual work, especially where it can be
automated
See little point in networking, socializing, or small talk at
work
Intensely private and likely to deflect personal
questions
Very sarcastic and highly likely to make fun (in their own
minds) of less insightful colleagues by making them read between
the lines
Dislike phone calls and prefer e-mail instead
Brilliant masterminds and analysts, able to recognize various
undercurrents and tension between certain colleagues in the
workplace and avoid them (INTJs are unlikely to use this knowledge
to their advantage though)
Extremely judgmental—people with the INTJ personality type
are likely to have very little respect for colleagues they believe
are incompetent

Beware of a quiet INTJ during the brainstorming
session; it is quite unlikely that they have nothing to say. The
more likely explanation is that they do not respect you enough to
bother airing their opinions.

INTJ Managers
Have very high standards when it comes to professional
competence
Willing to give their subordinates a lot of freedom at
work
Casual and relaxed, valuing independent thinking more than
protocol
Despise schmoozing or attempts to manipulate—this will not
work on an INTJ
Likely to treat subordinates as equals
Respect people with strong opinions, even if they contradict
their own views—as long as arguments are nonemotional
More interested in strategy than tactical
implementation
Strive for efficiency in the workplace—do not take the risk
of telling an INTJ manager that you have always done things this
way
Highly respect and reward initiative
Do not mind being proven wrong if someone else’s argument is
better
Will not get involved in office gossip or
socializing

INTJ Subordinates
Only respect the manager if they are actually
competent—titles mean nothing to someone with an INTJ
personality
Have no problems criticizing their manager’s statements if
they believe the manager is intelligent enough to reconsider their
position if proven wrong.
Accept and actually enjoy criticism at work, as long as it is
followed by valid arguments
Unlike most other personality types, INTJs rarely see
managerial positions as desirable; they would rather be well-paid
experts. People with this personality type are unlikely to be a
threat to their managers from this perspective.
May become frustrated when not given enough freedom at
work
Are likely to strongly resist attempts to pigeon-hole them
into specific, well-defined roles

For
those that falsely claim this is defamation (to stop criticism) -
perhaps BG or Ofcom: The UK Defamation Act 2013 "provides increased
protection to operators of websites that host user-generated
content, providing they comply with the procedure to enable the
complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author of the
material concerned". However, you already have address & email,
it is documented so I would like to see you try deny what you
did.

The Act
also "introduces new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion
to replace the common law defences of justification. and fair
comment" - so I really cannot lose. The fact of the matter is that
all this is documented - so is not libelous either in truth or
honest opinion.

Key areas of UK Defamation Act 2013

includes
a requirement for claimants to show that they have suffered serious
harm before suing for defamation

removes
the current presumption in favour of a jury trial

introduces
a defence of "responsible publication on matters of public
interest"

provides
increased protection to operators of websites that host
user-generated content, providing they comply with the procedure to
enable the complainant to resolve disputes directly with the author
of the material concerned

introduces
new statutory defences of truth and honest opinion to replace the
common law defences of justification. and fair comment.